Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who was hanging there railed at him, saying, “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 23:40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Don’t you fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 23:41 And we rightly so, for we are getting what we deserve for what we did, but this man has done nothing wrong.” 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.” 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

How could Jesus say that this repentant man would be in paradise ‘today’, when he himself would be in the grave for three days, and would not ascend to heaven until much later still?

There are several things to consider.

1. The meaning of ‘Paradise’

Edwards regards ‘Paradise’ as the opposite of ‘Gehenna’, the place of condemnation and punishment.  In Jewish thought, it is ‘a celestial Garden of Eden, reserved for the righteous after death’.  It is not some lower, temporary state, but rather signifies ‘the full presence of God, the highest heaven’.

According to HSB (along with many others), ‘paradise’ means heaven, and Jesus was, accordingly, in heaven before his ascension.  His ‘preaching to the spirits in prison’ (1 Pet 3:19) was, if it was a pre-resurrection visit, may only have been very brief.

Paroschi concurs:

‘By “Paradise,” there should be no ques­tion that Jesus meant heaven (2 Cor 12:2–4) or the eternal habitation of the redeemed in the New Jerusalem in which the tree of life and the throne of God will be found (Rev 2:7; 22:1–5).’

Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) suggests that ‘paradise’ was not exalted to heaven until Easter Sunday.  If ‘paradise’ is another name for ‘Abraham’s Bosom’ (Lk 16:19-31), then it could have been that part of the abode of the dead (Hades/Sheol) which was reserved for the righteous.  They would be admitted to the presence of God when the price of their redemption had been paid and when their Saviour was himself raised to life.  Under this interpretation, our Lord’s ‘descent’ (Eph 4:8) was to that very place, and from there he led those held there up to glory.  It must be admitted that this is conjectural.

2. The meaning of ‘today’

Does ‘today’ qualify ‘You will be with me’, or ‘I tell you’?  In other words, does Jesus mean ‘I tell you that today you will be with me in paradise’, or ‘I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise’?

I will discuss each of these options in turn.

(a) ‘I tell you that today you will be with me in paradise’

This may be regarded as the ‘received’ interpretation, being supported by the majority of translations and commentators.  These include, among older writers: Ambrose, Origen, Augustine, Calvin (implied), Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Barnes, JFB, Lange, Ryle.

And among more recent commentators: Morris, Hendriksen, Brown (The Death of the Messiah), Marshall, Edwards, Garland, Perrin, Stein, Liefeld, Evans, Nolland, Gundry, Bock, Schreiner, Murray Harris, and others.

J.B. Green says that

‘Although it is grammatically possible that “today” could be read with “I assure you,” its function as an adverb to denote when the criminal will join Jesus in Paradise is assured by Luke’s well-documented concern with the immediacy of salvation (e.g., Lk 4:21; 19:9). And, since “paradise” connotes the end-time dwelling of the righteous with God, Jesus promises an immediate transfer to life in God’s presence.’ (DJG [2nd ed.], art. ‘Heaven and Hell’)

Popular though this view is, Marston raises a theological objection.  If Jesus and the criminal were together in paradise later on that very day, where was Jesus’ soul?  His resurrection was three days away, and his ascension to heaven occurred after six weeks.

I do not see this objection as conclusive.  On either view, the bodies of both Jesus and the criminal would lay in their graves (with that of Jesus to be raised on the third day) but their souls would enter the intermediate state immediately upon death: the only question then would be the nature of that intermediate state, and whether the souls of one or both of them would conscious or unconscious.  And that is the very issue under discussion.

So, is there a hint here of the intermediate state?

Joel Green (op. cit.) maintains that neither this passage nor Lk 16:19-31 testify to the idea of an ‘intermediate state’.

Garland agrees:

‘Since Jesus promises that he will be “with” the criminal in paradise “today,” it cannot be thought of as an intermediate abode. It is where Jesus is seated at God’s right hand (Lk 22:69).’

Others, however, think that is possible to see here a hint of a distinction between the intermediate state (that pertains to believers immediately following death) and the final state of the blessed (that pertains after the parousia).  The former is intimate blessedness (it is being ‘with Christ’).  The latter is cosmic blessedness (in the new heaven and the new earth).

Murray Harris:

‘Where was Jesus during the long intervals between his appearances? We know he was in paradise on the day of his death (Luke 23:43), and so we must assume his appearances were incursions from the heavenly realm where he had already been exalted to his Father’s right hand. His ascension into heaven after forty days was a visible dramatization of this invisible enthronement, and it marked the end of his earthly resurrection appearances.’ (Navigating Tough Texts, p51)

Perrin:

‘Because of the natural word order of the Greek and Luke’s thematic insistence that salvation is a matter of today (Lk 2:11; 4:21; 19:9), we conclude that Jesus expects to enter into some kind of intermediate state along with the now-forgiven malefactor—and to do so today.’

Bird (Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed.):

‘Most likely, “paradise” here denotes the intermediate state and is another way of referring to Hades. This comports with the biblical teaching that when Jesus died, he went to the waiting place of the dead (Acts 2:27, 31; 1 Pet 3:19–21).’

Some (including Froom and Papaioannou) claim, against this view, that the penitent criminal did not, in fact, die that very day.  Rather, he was likely to have survived for several more days.  According to Mk 15:44, Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died within a few hours of crucifixion.  But Jn 19:31-34 makes very clear that the deaths of the two criminals was hastened by breaking their legs so that they would not be left hanging on the cross on the next day (an important Sabbath).

But how could Jesus refer to himself (along with the penitent criminal) as being in Paradise that very day, when Peter, in Acts 2, locates Jesus in Hades between his death and resurrection?  The solution, according to Williamson, is that Hades refers to the abode of the dead, and Paradise being ‘the blessed section of Hades, the intermediate state’ (Osei-Bonsu).

One additional factor counts in favour of this interpretation.  There may be a deliberate antithetical parallelism between the criminal’s request, and Jesus’ reply.

The vague ‘remember me’ is answered by the definite, ‘You will be with me.’

The indefinite ‘when you come in your kingdom’ evokes the specific, ‘Today…in paradise.’

(b) ‘I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise’

This interpretation is maintained by some Roman Catholic exegetes, influenced, no doubt, by their doctrine of Purgatory (see the discussion in Lange).

It is also defended at some length in this article by Dr Wilson Paroschi (from a SDA publication), and in this article by Dr Paul Marston.

Ancient manuscripts had little puctuation, and in most cases there is no indication of a comma (marked by a point on the line) either before or after the adverb sēmeron. That is so in the present case.

The main exception is the important fourth century Codex Vaticanus, which reorders the syntax to read: ‘Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise’.

Thiselton accepts interpretation (b) of this text, while maintaining belief in the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection.  He does so by invoking the idea of ‘subjective atemporality’ mentioned previously.

Paroschi (followed by Marston) notes that the adverb sēmeron can be placed either before or after the verb it describes.  Luke uses it 20 times in his writings.    In the majority of cases, he places it after the verb which it modifies.  In this case (as in Acts 20:26) the expression ‘I tell you today’ conveys the urgency and importance of the statement.  It is reasonable to suppose, then, that it modifies ‘I tell you’ here.  Luke’s usage, then, would give some support to this interpretation.

Marston (Death and ‘Hell’: What the New Testament Does and Does Not Teach) draws particular attention Paul’s use of ‘today’ in Acts 20:26 –

Acts 20:26 “Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all.”

Paroschi suggests that Luke, in placing sēmeron after the verb in Acts 20:26 is employing a semitic idiom that has the effect of emphasising the urgency and importance of the declaration.

This reflects OT usage, particularly in Deuteronomy:

“I teach you today” (4:1) “I set before you today” (11:26), “I give you today” (28:13), “I command you today” (6:6; 7:11; 12:32), “I testify against you today” (8:19), and “I declare you today” (30:18).

Paroschi notes that in Jn 14:1-3 Jesus refers to the time when he will come again and take his own to be with him in his Father’s house.  The implication is that they will not be with him in his Father’s house before his return.  But this objection relies on a questionable (though popular) interpretation of Jn 14.  Rather than insisting the Jesus was referring only to his parousia, it may well be the case that he had more than one ‘return’ in mind, beginning with his return to them following his death and resurrection (cf. Jn 20:19-29); continuing with his return in the person of the Spirit, (Cf. Jn 14:15-23); and concluding with his second advent (Jn 5:25ff; 14:28; 21:22–23; cf. 1 Jn 2:28).

Paroschi raises a further point.  According to Mt 25:31-34, Christ’s kingdom will be inherited at the end of the age.  Therefore, when the criminal requests that Jesus ‘remember’ him when he enters his kingdom, it would make Jesus’ reply inconsistent with this if he meant that he would make that entry that very day.  But this is to derive doctrine from a parable (a procedure that should always give hesitation), and to deny that there may be an ‘already/not yet’ nature to the kingdom.  In any case, it is perfectly possible that Jesus never intended to give a ‘straight’ answer to the criminal’s request.  It would be entirely in keeping with what we know of our Lord if he were to have promised the man much more than he actually asked for: ‘Remember you when I come into my kingdom?  Why, you will be with me this very day!’

Paul teaches that deceased believers will rise from their graves at Jesus’ return (1 Cor 15:20-23).  He never seeks to comfort them by saying that they are in paradise/heaven with Jesus already.  He points to the final resurrection (1 Thess 4:13– 18; cf. 2 Cor 1:8–10; Phil 3:8–11), and it will only be after that even they will be with the Lord for ever, 1 Thess 4:17.  It is certainly true that Paul places much more emphasis on the final state than on the intermediate state.  But this falls short of demonstrating that the intermediate state is of no consequence, consisting only of unconscious waiting.

Moreover, Paroschi argues, it is Jesus’ resurrection, not his death, that gives believers hope for life beyond death (1 Cor 15:16–20; Rom. 10:9).  How could Jesus promise the criminal that they would be together in Paradise that same day, when it is clear that when Jesus died, he went into the grave (Luke 23:50–54; Acts 2:31f; 13:29–31)?  It will not do to argue that, while Jesus’ body went into the grave, his spirit ascended to heaven, because he himself, on the morning of his resurrection, told Mary not to hold on to him, because he had not yet ascended to his Father, Jn 20:17.

(c) A theological, rather than a chronological ‘today’?

An increasing number of modern scholars think that ‘today’ is to be interpreted theologically, rather than chronologically.

‘To the criminal’s vague “when” Jesus responded with a precise “today,” referring less to within the next twenty-four hours or before the sun goes down than to the realization of Jesus’ reign through his death, resurrection, and ascension. This day through Jesus’ death, salvation was being achieved, and the criminal would share in it. As a result even though this took place temporally that day, “Luke’s ‘today’ belongs … more to theology than to chronology.”’ (Stein, quoting Sabourin)

Similarly, the contributor to Harper’s Bible Commentary:

‘”Today” does not mean ‘within a twenty-four-hour period, but in the “today” of the kingdom (Luke 4:21).’

France (TTCS) seems to incline towards this view:

‘In earthly reality the resurrection and subsequent ascension are still to come, but in the perspective of eternity Jesus goes straight from the cross to his heavenly throne.’

So also Parsons:

‘The use of the word “today” echoes especially the words spoken by Jesus to Zacchaeus: “Today, salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham” (Lk 19:9; see also Lk 2:11 and Lk 4:21). The import is one of immediacy, not of chronological specificity. ‘

Pate (40 Questions About the Historical Jesus) discusses the issue with regard to Jesus’ promise that he would be in his grave three days (or parts thereof).  Whereas ‘today’ has traditionally been interpreted as referring to a 24-hour period, this would be in conflict with other Scriptures that teach that he first ‘descended’ to Hades after death (Mt 12:40; Acts 2:31; Rom 10:7).  Thus, for Pate and some others, ‘today’ should be understood as eschatologically, rather than chronologically; it refers to ‘the day of salvation’ which would dawn when he was exalted at his resurrection.

Joel Green (op. cit.) suggests that

‘this passing of time could be a matter of perspective: the participation of the dead in the movement from this life to the next versus the perception of time by those who bury their dead and await the eschaton. If the dead experience eternity with God, then there is good basis for imagining that they are not governed by the passing of time as we experience it.’

Nolland:

‘Still in the hour of his own death Jesus brings salvation (in the context of the present mocking of his pretensions about saving others, he extends salvation to yet another person). This criminal has no need to wait for Jesus to come into his kingdom; though not yet come to his kingdom, Jesus is already granting royal clemency.’

R.E. Brown allows both senses:

‘On the one hand “this day” has an eschatological tone, so that E. E. Ellis is correct in saying that of itself the phrase does not necessarily mean the day of crucifixion but could refer to a period of salvation inaugurated by the death of Jesus. Yet the context, in which the response goes beyond the request, favors the literal meaning of “this very day” (which, in any case, is eschatological), not some indefinite future in God’s plan. Luke signals that by the immediately following references (Lk 23:44) to the sixth hour (noon) and the ninth hour (3 P.M.), i.e., hours of that same day which is now hastening to a close. In Lk 2:11; 4:21; and 19:9 Luke has used “this day” of a chronological day that is also an eschatological moment of salvation.’

Gonzalez warns that using this as a proof-text in debates about the ‘intermediate state’ misses the point:

‘This saying of Jesus has often been used as a proof text to argue that immediately upon death the soul of the believer goes to heaven, against those who say that the soul has to await the final resurrection. Without entering into such a debate, one can at least see that this is a rather flimsy argument. Indeed, were one to take this text in that literal and doctrinal fashion, one could similarly quote other texts to claim that immediately after his death Jesus was not in paradise, but rather in the place of the dead, or, as the Apostles’ Creed says, “he descended into hell” (Eph. 4:9; 1 Pet. 3:18–20).

‘Such a debate obscures the text itself as a response to the irony that has permeated the earlier part of the narrative. Jesus, who has saved others, will not save himself. But even now, as he is about to die, and as he undergoes the torments of the cross, he is able to save the repentant criminal.’

But I think we can improve upon this protest against taking the text in a ‘literal and doctrinal fashion’.  E. Earle Ellis (in his commentary on Luke in The Century Bible New Edition), adopts the majority position that ‘today’ belongs with ‘you will be with me in Paradise’.  But:

‘This does not mean, however, that Jesus expects an immediate parousia. Nor is the reference to a twenty-four-hour period. ‘Today’ is sometimes a technical expression for the time of messianic salvation. Here that time is Jesus’ exaltation at the resurrection.’

Ellis cites Luke 2:11; 3:22; 4:21; 19:9; Matt. 6:11 & 2 Cor. 6:2 in support of this view.

Conclusion

I lack expertise in the original languages of the Bible.  But I am inclined to think that Jesus meant: “Today you will be with me in Paradise”, and that this was not the ‘today’ of 24 hours, but the ‘today’ of salvation.

Bibliography

In addition to the works cited above, see this, by Eddie Lawrence.

Also:

Farrar, T. (2017) Today in Paradise?: Ambiguous Adverb Attachment and the Meaning of Luke 23:43. Neotestamentica 51.2 (2017).  Online.  (Argues that ‘Truly I say to you today’ is a possible translation, but less likely than ‘Today you will be with me in paradise’.)

Papaioannou, K. (2013) The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus. Pickwick Publications.