WITH ME IN PARADISE.
According to Luke’s account of the crucifixion of our Saviour, Luke
23:27-46, one of the two malefactors who were crucified with him, said
to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And
Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with
me in Paradise.” Verses 42, 43. This, says the immaterialist, “must ever
stand as a clear announcement of the uninterrupted immortality of the
soul.” (_Landis_, p. 211.) The “clear announcement” is made out in this
manner: Christ and the thief, it is claimed, both died that day; they
both went to paradise that day; and their condition while there was, of
course, one of consciousness and intelligence.
There is one fact which stands somewhat in the way of this clear
announcement; and that is, that _Christ did not go to paradise that
day_. In answer to the popular view, we first set forth this unqualified
proposition, and undertake its proof; and if this shall prove to be well
grounded, the doctrine of annihilation will be found in a degree true;
for the claims usually built on the scripture above quoted are utterly
and forever annihilated by this fact.
In entering upon the argument to show that Christ did not go to paradise
that day, we first inquire what paradise is and where it is. The word
occurs but three times in the English version of the Scriptures, all in
the New Testament; two besides the verse under consideration; but these
are amply sufficient to define and locate it.
First, Paul in 2 Cor. 12:2, says: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen
years ago (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the
body, I cannot tell; God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third
Heaven.” In verse 4, he affirms that the place to which this man was
caught up was paradise. This establishes the fact that paradise is in
the third Heaven.
Again, in Rev. 2:7, we read the promise which the Saviour gives to the
overcomers; and he says: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of
the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” This
establishes another equally important fact, that paradise is where the
tree of life now is. Now, if the Scriptures anywhere give us any further
information respecting the place where the tree of life is to be found,
we have still further testimony respecting paradise.
In Rev. 21 and 22, we have a description of the New Jerusalem, the holy
city which is above. In chap. 22:1, 2, we read: “And he showed me a pure
river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne
of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it [the city], and
on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare
twelve manner of fruit, and yielded her fruit every month.” By this
testimony, we learn that the tree of life, which grows in the midst of
the paradise of God, is in the holy city, fast by the river of life,
which proceeds from the throne of God. Nothing could be more explicit
than this. We have now found the paradise of the New Testament. It is in
the third Heaven, where the tree of life is, and where God maintains his
residence and his throne. Whoever, therefore, goes into paradise, goes
into the presence of God. If the Saviour went there on the day of his
crucifixion, with the impenitent thief, he went into the presence of his
Father.
Now let us reverently listen to the words of the Lord and believe what
he says, while he himself testifies whether he went to paradise on the
day of his crucifixion, or not. On the morning of his resurrection, the
_third day_ after his crucifixion, he said to Mary, who was about to
embrace his feet, in accordance with the ancient custom of deference or
worship, “Touch me not; FOR I AM NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER.” The
third day, remember, from the crucifixion, and not ascended into
paradise yet!
Struck into a state of bewilderment by this stunning fact, Landis, pp.
209, 211, clutches wildly for some supports by which to rear again his
prostrate structure. He feigns to find evidence in John 16:16, that
Jesus told his disciples that at death he would go to his Father: a
scripture which very evidently has reference, not to his death, but to
his bodily ascension, forty days after his resurrection. Then, referring
to the fact that the word “ascend” is from _anabaino_, he says: “Now
every tyro knows that in composition _ana_ has very frequently [?] the
force of _again_. _Baino_ alone means simply _to ascend_; _ana_ adds a
shade of meaning.”
It is frequently the case that writers try to drive others into an
admission of their statements by representing that they will appear very
ignorant and stupid to deny them. But Mr. L., not being a tyro,
doubtless understands that nearly every statement in this criticism is
false in itself considered, and every one of them wholly so, as applied
to the case in hand. _Ana_, in composition with _baino_, does not have
the force of again. In neither Liddell and Scott, Robinson, Greenfield,
nor Parkhurst, is there any such definition as “ascended again” given to
_anabaino_. _Baino_ alone does not mean “to ascend.” No such definition
is given to it in the standard authorities here named. It means simply
to go, without any reference to the direction; other words, either in
composition with it, or in the context, signifying whether this motion
is up or down, forward or backward, over or under, &c. In no one of the
eighty-one instances of the use of the word in the New Testament, is it
translated “ascend again.” And finally, those texts which Mr. L. quotes
as containing the word again, as Matt. 3:16, which he quotes, “Christ
_went up again_, or returned,” and Matt. 5:1, which he quotes, “He went
up _again_ into a mountain,” the word, again, is not expressed in the
English nor implied in the Greek. In only one instance is the word again
used with _anabaino_; that is Gal. 2:1, where Paul says, “I went up
_again_ to Jerusalem;” but here the word again is from another word
(_palin_), and _anabaino_ is translated simply “went up.”
Rarely do we meet with an instance of more reckless desperation in the
line of criticism. And what is the object of it? It is to have us
understand that when Christ says, “I am not yet ascended to my Father,”
he means to say, I am not yet ascended _again_ to my Father. And from
this he would have us further draw the lucid inference that Christ had
ascended once, that is, in his disembodied spirit, between his death and
resurrection, and now tells Mary not to touch him because he has not
ascended again! It would be difficult to conceive of a more unnecessary
and far-fetched inference. And that men will seriously contend for such
a view, shows the orbless obstinacy with which they will cling to
preconceived notions, though they have only the most groundless trifles
to sustain them, rather than surrender them for more consistent views.
Nothing can be more evident than that Christ, when he said, “I am not
yet ascended to my Father,” affirmed in the most direct manner that
since his advent into this world, he had not, up to that time, ascended
to his Father.
Rather than thus summarily lose the argument that the thief was still
conscious in death, and that the soul is therefore (?) immortal, another
attempt is made to adjust the matter thus: Although Christ did not go to
his Father, he nevertheless went to paradise, which is not where the
Father dwells, but the intermediate resting place of departed souls. Do
we then understand them? We found them, a little while ago, arguing from
Eccl. 12:7, that the disembodied spirit _did_ return to God; which they
claimed to be proof positive that the soul is immortal; and thought it
would puzzle the annihilationists not a little. Do they now give this
up, and admit that the soul or spirit does not go to God, but only into
some intermediate place, called paradise? It matters not to us which
position they take, only we wish to know which one it is. We cannot hold
our peace and allow them to take one position on one text and another on
another, to avoid the embarrassments into which their theory plunges at
every turn.
That paradise is no intermediate state, a halfway house between the
grave and the resurrection, we have fully shown; for we have the
positive statements of the Scriptures to show that paradise is in the
third Heaven, where God sits upon his throne; and Christ told Mary, the
third day after his crucifixion, in so many words, that he had not yet
ascended there.
The popular interpretation of Christ’s language to the thief thus
utterly failing, we are thrown back upon the text for some other
explanation of the phraseology there used: “Verily I say unto thee,
To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
There are but two probable ways in which this language can be
interpreted: One is, to let the phrase, “to-day,” refer to the time to
which the thief had reference in his request. He said, “Lord, remember
me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” He looked forward to the day when
Christ should come into his kingdom. And if the “to-day” in Christ’s
answer refers to this time, then the sense would be, “Verily I say unto
thee, To-day, or this day, the day to which you refer, when I come into
my kingdom, thou shalt be with me in paradise.” The word, to-day, is
from the Greek, σήμερον (_semeron_); and all the definitions we find of
it would seem to confine it to present time, excluding an application of
it to the future. This interpretation, therefore, we think cannot be
urged.
The other, and only remaining method of interpreting the passage, is to
place the comma after “to-day,” making to-day an adverb qualifying say.
The sense would then be, Verily I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be
with me in paradise, at that period in the future when I shall come in
my kingdom.
This method of punctuation, if it is allowable, clears the subject of
all difficulty. Let us then candidly consider what objections can be
urged against it.
As to the punctuation itself, we all know that that is not the work of
inspiration, and withal that it is of recent origin, the comma in its
present form not having been invented till the year A. D. 1790. It is
therefore allowable to change this in any manner that the sense of the
passage, the context, or even other portions of the Scriptures may
demand. And in support of this punctuation, we have the example of some
Greek manuscripts, which, according to Griesbach, place the comma after
“to-day” in this declaration.
But the objector accuses us of making sad nonsense of the text by this
change; and he asks, in bitter irony, “Didn’t the thief know it was that
day, without Christ’s telling him?” Very true, as a matter of fact; but
let the objector beware lest his sarcasm fall upon the Scriptures
themselves; for such very expressions do occur therein. See Zech. 9:12:
“Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even _to-day_ do I
declare that I will render double unto thee.” Transposing this sentence,
without altering the sense, we have phraseology similar to that of Luke
23:43; namely, “I declare unto you even to-day, I will render double
unto thee.” The events threatened here were to take place in the future,
when the Lord should bend Judah, &c. See context. So the phrase,
“to-day,” could not qualify the “rendering double,” &c., but only the
declaration.
Here, then, is an expression exactly parallel with that in Luke, and the
same irony is applicable; thus, “Did not the prisoners of hope know it
was that day when the declaration was made to them?” But let our
opponents now discard their unworthy weapon; for here it is leveled
against the words of Inspiration itself.
But when we take into consideration the circumstances of the case, we
see a force and propriety in the Saviour’s making his declaration
emphatically upon that day. He had been preaching the advent of the
kingdom of Heaven to listening multitudes. A kingdom, he had promised to
his followers. But the powers of death and darkness had apparently
triumphed, and were crushing into the very grave both his prospects and
his promises. He who was expected to be the king of the coming kingdom,
stretched upon the shameful cross, was expiring in ignominy and
reproach; his disciples were scattered; and where now was the prospect
of that kingdom which had been preached and promised? But amid the
supernatural influences at work upon that memorable day, a ray of divine
illumination may have flashed in upon the soul of the poor thief,
traveling the same road of death beside his Lord. A conviction of the
truthfulness of his claims as the Messiah, the Son of God, may have
entered into his mind, and a desire have sprung up in his heart to trust
his lot in his hands, leading him to put up a humble and sincere
petition, Lord, in mercy remember me when the days of thy triumph and
glory shall come. Yes, says the suffering Saviour, in the hearing of the
mocking multitude, I say unto thee, _to-day_--to-day, in this hour of my
darkness and agony--to-day, when the fatal cross is apparently giving
the lie to all my pretensions--to-day, a day of forlorn prospects and
withered hopes, so far as human eyes can see--verily, _to-day_, I say
unto thee, thou shalt be with me in paradise, when my kingdom shall be
established in triumph and glory.
Thus, there is a divine force and beauty in these words of our Lord, as
uttered on that occasion. How like a sun at midnight would they have
broken in upon the gloom that enshrouded the sorrowing hearts of the
disciples, had they fathomed their import. For who had occasion to sink
in despair, if not He upon whom all depended, and that, too, when
expiring under the agonies of the cross. But lo! no cloud of gloom is
sufficient to fix its shadows upon his serene brow. His divine
foresight, riding calmly over the events of the present, fixes itself
upon that coming period of glory, when he shall see of the travail of
his soul and be satisfied. There, in the hour of his deepest humility,
he points them to the joys of paradise.
Thus, by a simple removal of the comma one word forward, the stone of
stumbling is taken out of this text, by making it harmonize with other
Scriptures; and thus, the promise, by having reference to something in
the future, and not to anything to be performed on that day, contains no
affirmation of consciousness in death.