Luke 23:43 (Focus)

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Oct 16 02:30:33 EDT 2002


On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 03:32 PM, nick lunn wrote:

>      AMHN LEGW SOI SHMERON MET'EMOU ESH EN TW PARADEISW
>      'Truly I tell you today you shall be with me in paradise'.
>
>      There are two ways to interpret this verse according to its 
> information
>      structure. We can display these two ways simply as follows:
>
>
>      (1) First option:-
>
>      AMHN LEGW SOI         SHMERON    MET'EMOU ESH    EN TW PARADEISW
>
>      Speech introduction    When         What            Where
>
>
>      (2) Second option:-
>
>      AMHN LEGW SOI SHMERON    MET'EMOU ESH   EN TW PARADEISW
>
>      Speech introduction         What            Where
>
>
>      To help us decide which of these is that which is most probably 
> intended we
>      need to look at the thief's original question in v.42:-
>
>       IESOU, MNHSQHTI HOTAN ELQHS EIS THN BASILEIAN SOU
>
>      'Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom' |
>
>      Here we see that the structure is:-
>
>      [Vocative]   What    When
>
>      The vocative is an extra-clausal constituent and need not concern 
> us here.
>      The basic utterence consists of a main clause, plus a 
> circumstantial
>      clause. We note that the main clause contains both 'actants', 
> that is,
>      - the agent (you = Jesus, encoded by means of the verbal suffix)
>      - the patient (me = thief).
>      'Remember me', says the thief. This is the thrust of his 
> communication to
>      Christ.
>
>      We need to ask ourselves which part of Christ's response 
> corresponds to
>      the request of the thief. Clearly it is MET'EMOU ESH, 'you shall 
> be with
>      me'. Here we have again both actants present - 'YOU shall be with 
> ME'.
>      Does this not suggest that this is the thrust of Christ's 
> response? The
>      thief says, 'Remember me', and Jesus answers 'You shall be with 
> me',
>      implying that he would indeed be remembered. As the thief's 
> request is
>      clause-initial, being the main assertion of his utterance, is it 
> not
>      reasonable to suppose that Christ's response corresponding to 
> this would
>      also be clause-initial? In both cases the main assertion comes 
> first,
>      followed by a less prominent circumstantial clause/phrase. If 
> this is a
>      correct analysis, this would give us:
>
>      'Remember me             when you come into your kingdom'
>
>      'You shall be with me    in paradise'
>
>          What                  When/Where (Circumstance)
>
>      The conclusion of this analysis is that 'today', SHMERON, forms 
> no part of
>      the main proposition. Surely the greater thing is to be WITH 
> CHRIST, the
>      day when this happens is peripheral in comparison.

Sorry it took so long to respond. Busy, busy, busy.

With all due respect, Nick, the above analysis seems to be a 
sophisticated process of stacking the deck in favor of the desired 
conclusion.

First of all, when you ask *which part* of Christ's response 
*corresponds* to the criminal's request, you are assuming (and asking 
us to assume) a priori that (1) there IS one "part" in particular that 
corresponds to the request, rather than that the entire response forms 
a holistic reply to the criminal's plea, and (2) that there is 
straightforward correspondence to, rather than an intentional contrast 
with, the criminal's request. So by this prearranged limitation you 
have antecedently and arbitrarily provided yourself with a mechanism 
for excluding SHMERON from the content clause following LEGW. But 
rather than assuming one element or another is the "part" that 
corresponds to the criminal's request, I think it is more natural to 
assume that Jesus meant his WHOLE reply as a meaningful response to 
that request. If we start with this assumption, we will be better able 
to fairly access the evidence for whether or not SHMERON should be 
included in that response. As I will argue, Jesus' response is not a 
straightforward nod of approval that simply conforms to the desires of 
the criminal, but rather is contrastive in more than one of its 
elements, and actually promises more to the criminal than what he was 
asking. Jesus shifts the focus from the criminal's anticipation of a 
*future* kingdom of power and glory of which he would be a part to the 
prospect of *imminent* fellowship with Jesus in the traditional place 
of bliss, Paradise.

Second, Jesus' reply follows neither the pattern nor the vocabulary of 
the request, so to try to isolate any element as being "clause initial" 
by an analogy based on the "actants" is tenuous at best. The request 
is, MNHSQHTI MOU hOTAN ELQHiS EIS THN BASILEAN SOU. The corresponding 
reply, if following the same pattern and vocabulary, would be something 
like, MNHSQHSOMAI SOU hOTAN ELQW EIS THN BASILEIAN MOU. But that is NOT 
the pattern in which Jesus chose to reply, nor did he use the same 
vocabulary. So it is impossible to state for certain what is clause 
initial on the basis of analogy. What seems to be conditioning your 
analysis is the assumption that Jesus reply *must* mirror the pattern 
of the criminal's request.

Third, that a request from one person to another should be met with an 
answer that includes both "actants" is hardly an earth-shattering 
observation. What else would we expect? The very predictability of both 
"actants" being mentioned *somewhere* in the response makes the FACT 
that both "actants" are indeed  mentioned in the response useless in 
helping us determine what is clause initial. This seems to be nothing 
more than another antecedent and arbitrary mechanism to automatically 
exclude SHMERON from the content clause before meaningful analysis can 
even begin, for how COULD an adverb "contain" both "actants," or even 
one "actant"? By its very nature it does not even have the potential to 
express such information, so this point can in no way reasonably be 
used to exclude SHMERON as clause-initial. Does it not seem 
fundamentally unfair to banish SHMERON from the clause-initial position 
because it DOES NOT contain information that it CANNOT contain? And 
since (as was pointed out above) Jesus reply does not reflect the 
pattern and vocabulary of the request, there is no compelling reason to 
assume that his reply must necessarily refer to both actants in the 
same clause initial position as the request. Again the assumption is 
that the pattern of the reply must mirror that of the request. This 
once more fails to take into consideration that Jesus may have desired 
to answer the criminal by way of contrast and expansion. To assume that 
Jesus' answer simply mirrors the request only begs the question.

As I said, I think your analysis makes much of the predictable and 
mundane (the FACT of Jesus' response containing both "actants") while 
at the same time ignoring the following significant contrasts, features 
that I think are truly striking and would have been so for a 1st 
century reader.

(1) The very first time I read this passage in Greek I was struck by 
the contrast of the temporal markers. In the criminal's request he 
says, "Lord, remember me whenever it is that (hOTAN) you come in/into 
your kingdom." In his plea, the criminal uses a subordinating 
indefinite temporal conjunction with the subjunctive verb ELQHiS. What 
is indefinite is not the FACT of Jesus' coming in/into his kingdom, but 
the TIME when he would do so. The criminal did not doubt that Jesus 
WOULD come in/into his kingdom, he just did not know WHEN. By contrast, 
the temporal adverb SHMERON seems to counter the indefiniteness of 
hOTAN. I find it very difficult to believe that this is just a 
coincidence and not a deliberate contrast.

(2) As I pointed out in my first post on this issue, PARADEISOS is not 
synonymous with THN BASILEIAN. This appears to be another deliberate 
contrast on Jesus' part. To a first century Jew, THN BASILEIAN would 
most likely conjure up images of the future, ultimate triumph of the 
Messiah over his enemies and the establishment of his universal rule in 
power and glory from Israel (see Luke 1.33; 19.11ff.; Acts 1.6). This 
would be especially true if, as Iver has put it, the criminal was a 
"freedom fighter," i.e., a revolutionary (cf. LHiSTHS in Matt 27.38, 
44). On the other hand, PARADEISOS would most likely have been thought 
of as a presently-existing place of bliss for the righteous, along the 
lines of "Abraham's side" in Luke 16.19ff. We saw in my first post the 
association of Abraham (and other OT worthies) with Paradise, the idea 
of it being the intermediate abode of the righteous souls of the dead, 
and the apparently close proximity to it of the place of punishment. So 
even though some have pooh-poohed Iver's association of Paradise with 
"Abraham's side" in Luke 16.19ff., there seems to be good reason to 
connect the two. Thus, as Iver pointed out in an earlier response to 
Carl, this understanding of PARADEISOS would in no way conflict with 
Jesus' overall eschatology. But I'm straying now.

When we put these two contrasts together, what Jesus seems to be saying 
here is this: "You are looking forward to the ultimate establishment of 
the kingdom of power and glory and to having a place in it. But even 
today, as a result of your repentance and confession of me as Messiah, 
you will have fellowship with me in the place of bliss." This is all 
the more striking since Paradise was thought of as the abode of the 
righteous, to which sacred throng the criminal had no idea he belonged 
(Luke 23.40f.). So Jesus is promising the criminal that for which he 
had not even dared to ask: immediate fellowship with Jesus in the place 
of bliss reserved for the righteous. MET' EMOU underscores something 
the criminal probably could not have anticipated or imagined in his 
request--it was not just that Jesus would remember him, but that he 
would actually be in Jesus' presence in fellowship with him. So there 
is a synergistic relationship of all the components of Jesus reply.

This type of use of SHMERON to underline a special blessing that the 
recipient would not have expected that day has its antecedent in Luke. 
The story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19 begins with Zacchaeus wishing simply 
to see who Jesus was (v. 3). So, being small of stature, he climbs up 
into a tree to get a better look. When Jesus reaches that place, he 
looks up and says, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at 
your house today" (v. 5). Note the word order in the Greek: SHMERON GAR 
EN TWi OIKWi SOU DEI ME MEINAI. The clause-initial position of SHMERON, 
where it it separated from the infinitive it modifies by seven words, 
indicates its importance. On this very day when Zacchaeus had only 
hoped to catch a glimpse of Jesus, Jesus would actually fellowship with 
him in his home. Note the response of Jesus' critics : "He has gone in 
to lodge with a sinful man" (PARA hAMARTWLWi ANDRI EISHLQEN KATALUSAI, 
v. 7). But it doesn't stop there. When this unrighteous, rich and hated 
chief tax collector repents (v. 8), Jesus says, SHMERON SWTHRIA TWi 
OIKWi TOUTWi EGENETO. Again SHMERON occupies the clause-initial 
position, emphasizing that that day was one of excessive blessing. What 
a day for Zacchaeus! Initially he had only wanted to get a glimpse of 
Jesus, but as it turned out he had the privilege of fellowshiping with 
him and ultimately was even visited with salvation! How could he have 
possibly imagined what was in store for him when he climbed that tree 
earlier in the day? Similarly, when the criminal in Luke 23 was 
fastened to the tree near Jesus, how could he possibly have imagined 
the salvation and fellowship with Jesus in Paradise that awaited HIM 
that very day?

I hope in dealing with some of the other posts on this issue to discuss 
other pertinent uses of SHMERON in Luke-Acts.

>      I am reminded of 1 Thess 4:15-18:-
>
>      15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we 
> who are
>      alive, who are left until the COMING of the Lord, will by no means
>      precede those who have died.
>      16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the 
> archangel's
>      call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from 
> heaven,
>      and the dead in Christ will rise first.
>      17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the
>      clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so WE 
> WILL
>      BE WITH the Lord forever.
>      18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
>
>      Here is the Lord coming at the end of the age following which we 
> will
>      'be with' him forever. Paul tells us to comfort one another with 
> these
>      words, that is, with the fact that we shall always be with the 
> Lord.
>      If the Spirit of the Lord inspiring Paul led him to offer present
>      comfort by means of a post-parousia event, would the same Lord 
> offer a
>      different comfort to the dying thief? Just a thought.

First, this is a colossal non sequitur. There are two quite different 
contexts to consider. In 1 Thessalonians 4.17 Paul is addressing the 
specific question of the place of the the dead believers in the events 
of the PAROUSIA and is comforting believers with the thought that those 
who are *alive* at the PAROUSIA will not precede the dead in meeting 
the Lord, but will in their turn be caught up together with them in the 
clouds to meet the Lord in the air and will subsequently be with him 
forever. He is *not* contemplating the imminent death of the *living* 
Thessalonian believers, as is the context of Luke 23.43, where both 
Jesus and the criminal are in the very throes of death. So to say that 
Paul comforting believers who were NOT facing imminent death with the 
prospect of being caught up ALIVE to meet Christ and be with him 
forever at the PAROUSIA somehow precludes Jesus from comforting a 
criminal on the very brink of death with the prospect of being with him 
in Paradise that day simply does not follow. I will not say any more on 
this, since it has already gone beyond the bounds of B-Greek.

Second, this example actually serves to call into question your whole 
analysis of Luke 23.43. When you say, "The conclusion of this analysis 
is that 'today', SHMERON, forms no part of the main proposition. Surely 
the greater thing is to be WITH CHRIST, the day when this happens is 
peripheral in comparison," and then immediately go on to say, "I am 
reminded of 1 Thess 4:15-18," you seem to indicate that in 1 
Thessalonians 4.17 the focus, or at least the most important idea, is 
being with Christ. But contrary to what the English translation you 
offer indicates, the adverb PANTOTE ("forever") precedes SUN KURIWi 
("with [the] Lord"). So how can you explain its place in the clause? It 
is no doubt in a more emphatic POSITION than SUN KURIWi. Does this mean 
it is more important than SUN KURIWi? Or does it serve to *highlight* 
the fact that being with the Lord will not be a fleeting experience, 
but rather an eternal one? If PANTOTE can be in a more prominent 
position here and yet not diminish the importance of SUN KURIWi, why 
cannot SHMERON be fronted in Luke 23.43 and not diminish the importance 
of MET' EMOU? In the case of the latter, SHMERON would serve to 
highlight the imminency of being with the Lord. In neither case is 
being with the Lord thus made to take a back seat. On the contrary, the 
prospect is made even more joyous.

I must add, as long as we are pointing to passages that come to mind 
when we read Luke 23.43, that there are other examples in the Pauline 
corpus that speak of being with the Lord that come much closer to the 
context of Luke 23.43. I will offer two that come to mind:

(1) In 2 Corinthians 5.1-10, Paul states that his ultimate desire is to 
be clothed with the resurrection body, rather than to be "unclothed" 
(v. 4). However, barring that, he would rather be away from the body 
and at home with the Lord (EKDHMHSAI EK TOU SWMATOS KAI ENDHMHSAI PROS 
TON KURION, v. 8). The destruction of the body and being away from the 
body and at home with the Lord (PROS TON KURION) should be seen in the 
context of Paul's recitations of all his hardships and dangers (e.g., 
4.7ff.; 11.23-27). There were times when he "had the sentence of death" 
in himself, i.e., thought for sure he would be put to death (1.9). But 
he knew that if he should be "away from the body" (EK TOU SWMATOS), 
i.e., should die before having his body "further clothed" 
(EPENDUSASQAI, v. 4) with immortality, he would be "with the Lord" 
(PROS TON KURION, v.8). This context is far closer to Luke 23.43 than 
that of 1 Thessalonians 4.17. EBC comments thus:

"Just as the repeated verb 'we groan' shows vv.2 and 4 to be related, 
so 'we are confident' relates vv.6 and 8, vv.3 and 7 being 
parenthetical in each case. But v.8 does not simply repeat v.6; it 
stands in antithetical parallelism to it. The corollary of 'residence 
in the body = absence from the Lord' (v.6) is 'absence from the body = 
residence with the Lord' (v.8). That is, what is implied in v.6 is 
stated positively in v.8: as soon as departure from mortal corporeality 
occurs (v.8a), residence in the Lord’s presence begins (v.8b). This 
then means that the same moment of death that marks the destruction of 
the transitory earthly tent-dwelling (v.1) also marks the taking up of 
permanent residence 'with the Lord' (v.8)."

Rather than an "either ...  or" position pitting the resurrection 
against being with the Lord immediately upon death, Paul's comments in 
2 Corinthians 5 strike the proper balance and illustrate the "both ... 
and" position, which seems also to have been the position of Jesus 
himself.

(2) In Philippians 1.21ff. Paul, in prison and facing a possible death 
sentence (v. 20), is hard pressed between two desires: "to depart and 
be with Christ" (TO ANALUSAI KAI SUN CRISTWi EINAI) and "to remain in 
the body" (TO ... EPIMENEIN [EN] THi SARKI). To depart and be with the 
Lord is much more desirable for Paul (v. 23), but to remain in the 
flesh is more necessary for the Philippians' sake (v. 24). Again, in 
light of the possibility of imminent death, this context is much closer 
to that of Luke 23.43 than is 1 Thessalonians 4.17. All 
theologically-motivated attempts to avoid this conclusion aside, being 
with Christ (SUN CRISTWi) is again viewed as taking place upon death. 
There is no conflict between Jesus and Paul.
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI



More information about the B-Greek mailing list