p. 188 | Paradise by John Nevins Andrews

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 26, 1874

Paradise.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Concluded.)

“To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23, 43.

But was not the thief admitted into Paradise the day of the crucifixion? So it is generally understood. Yet he was not to be there till Christ was there himself. He prayed to be remembered, when Christ should come, not into, but in [Gr. en] his kingdom. His prayer does, therefore, plainly refer, not to his entrance into Heaven, but to his second advent. And our Lord’s promise related to himself as well as to the thief, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” But we have the direct testimony, 1. Of Christ himself; 2. Of Peter; 3. Of Paul, that he was not in Paradise till he had first spent a period of time in hades. In other words, the testimony of these important witnesses shows that our Lord must be raised from the dead before he could pass from hades to Paradise. It is certain that the thief could not get there before our Lord himself.

The difficulty in reconciling our Lord’s promise to the thief with his own declaration concerning himself, made three days later, lies in the use of the word “to-day.” Did our Lord promise to take the penitent thief on the very day of the crucifixion to the place where the tree of life grows (compare Rev. 2:7, and 22:14), a place which contains also the river of life and the throne of God, and then three days afterward tell Mary that he had not yet been to the house of his Father?

Our Lord did not contradict in his declaration to Mary what he had promised to the thief; nor do the apostles while exactly sustaining his words in the one case contradict them in the other. We only seek to harmonize all the testimony. And lest the careless reader should suppose that all the difficulty is found on the side of those who deny that death is the door to Paradise, it may be well to state the difficulty on both sides.

1. Our difficulty lies in reconciling the “to-day” of the promise with his own testimony the third day afterward, that this promise was then unfulfilled.

2. But those who hold death as the gate to endless joys, have quite as difficult a task to accomplish. They insist that the word, “to-day,” makes it certain that Christ and the thief were in Paradise the very day of the crucifixion. It is, therefore, for them to reconcile this with his words spoken the third day afterward, that he had not yet been with his Father; and also to show how his soul could be in hades and Paradise at the same time; and still further, to meet Paul’s statement, that he did not ascend till after he had descended; and that the two successive acts were performed by the same person. These are far more formidable difficulties to solve than lie in our way from our Lord’s use of “to-day.” Our friends on the other side seem to think the difficulty all rests upon us for disposal. The truth is, the real difficulty is with them, and they cannot give any reasonable solution of it.

But what are we to do with the “to-day” of the promise? We have seen what our friends who think the sleep of the dead a great heresy are able to do with it. If they place Paradise in hades beneath, they locate it in a land of unconsciousness. If they locate it in Heaven above, they have the positive testimony of the Bible to show that Jesus did not enter it till he was raised from the dead. Indeed, David, 1000 years after his death, had not entered it, for the good reason that he was still asleep. Acts 2:34; 13:36. If we cannot solve the difficulty in this text, we certainly cannot make a worse failure than our friends on the other side. They claim that to give proper weight to the “to-day” of the promise, Christ and the thief must each have entered Paradise the day that the promise was made. Yet to maintain this view, they involve themselves in the contradiction of the plainest facts. This of itself is a sufficient demonstration that the truth is not found on that side. We freely admit that the word “to-day” seems most naturally to qualify the time of entering Paradise rather than to emphasize the time of the utterance, but we cannot so use this one word as to involve our Lord in a self-contradiction. The following propositions may be considered as offering a more just and reasonable view of the subject than is presented by the other side:—

1. The adverb, “to-day,” in view of the facts above stated, necessarily relates in this case to the time of the utterance, and not to the time of the fulfillment of the promise.

To this it is objected that the punctuation forbids such an interpretation; and also that there was no need of using the “to-day” to qualify the time of the utterance. But the punctuation is of comparatively recent origin, and not, therefore, entitled to any decisive weight in settling the interpretation of this text. And that it is proper to thus use the adverb, the circumstances strongly indicate. Jesus was dying as a malefactor. He could, with the utmost propriety, emphasize the time of the promise, so utterly unlike the coming glory was his complete humiliation and abasement. That it is sometimes the wisdom of God to thus emphasize the time of the utterance rather than the time of the accomplishment, is evident from Zech. 9:12: “Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope; EVEN TO-DAY DO I DECLARE that I will render double unto thee.” This interpretation of the passage involves no absurdity, and does not cause one part of the record to clash with another.

2. But we have in the words of Moses a remarkable parallel to the words of our Lord, “Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Thus we read, Deut. 9:1, “Hear, O Israel: Thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself.” It is true that in the one case the term used in our English version is “to-day,” and in the other it is “this day.” But there is really no difference in their meaning, and what is more, the word σήμερον (semeron), rendered “to-day” in our Lord’s promise to the thief is the very word used for “this day” in the Septuagint, i. e., the Greek Old Testament. So the words of Moses are a fair parallel to the words of Christ.

It is easy to prove that Israel did not pass over Jordan that day on which Moses addressed them. But it was at least several days after this before Moses died. And after his death the people mourned for him thirty days. Then after quite a number of days, sufficient for Joshua to assume command, and to send over the spies, and to receive their report, the people crossed the Jordan. It is likely that two months elapsed after Moses said, “Thou art to pass over Jordan this day,” before they actually passed it. See Deut. 34; Josh. 1:2. The proof is palpable that Israel did not pass over Jordan on the day that Moses made this promise, and it is equally evident that Moses did not expect them to pass over it on that day. But the proof that Christ did not enter Paradise the day of his death is equally explicit and direct. Our friends who regard death as the door of Paradise, think us almost infidels because in view of this direct and palpable evidence that Christ did not enter Paradise by dying, we take our stand that the “to-day” of the promise to the thief cannot be interpreted as they interpret it. Yet here is a parallel from the words of Moses which they are compelled to treat precisely as we do the words to the thief.

But what is the proper explanation of these words of Moses? Two facts may be adduced as shedding light upon this expression of Moses. 1. It had become a certainty that the people he had so long led should actually pass over the Jordan. 2. This was to take place in a very short time. These two facts which may be expressed in one sentence, “It is this day a certainty that thou shalt pass over the Jordan, and that in a short time,” form the justification of Moses in the use of this language. And so of our Lord’s words to the thief. It was by the act of the thief under such extraordinary circumstances, rendered certain that day, that he should have part with Christ in Paradise. And may I not add that when on the third day afterward Christ left hades, and many saints arose with him, this penitent man may have been numbered with them, and so formed one of that throng that ascended with our triumphant Lord? See Matt. 27:52, 53; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:8, margin. Such to my mind is the proper interpretation of these various texts. I submit to candid, thoughtful students of the Bible whether this is not a reasonable explanation of these words of our Lord to the dying penitent.

The Paradise of God shall in due time receive all the saints. Our Lord has gone thither before them as the forerunner. He is preparing the place for his people. When he has prepared the place for their reception, and when they have accomplished their preparation for the place, he shall return to take them thither. With him they shall ascend to the house of his Father. John 13:36; 14:1–3. Within the gates of the New Jerusalem they shall find the tree of life in the Paradise of God. Rev. 2:7; 22:1–5, 14. Here in the third Heaven where Paul heard the unspeakable words of joy, shall they behold the city prepared for Abraham and his seed, and each shall find a mansion prepared expressly for himself. Here with their own eyes shall they behold the things which God hath prepared for those that love him. Here shall they eat of the tree of life, and drink of the river that issues out of the throne of God. Here they shall eat the marriage supper. Here they shall sit with Christ on thrones of judgment during the thousand years. And when the New Jerusalem shall take its place as the metropolis of the glorified new earth, they shall take the kingdom under the whole heaven as their own inheritance, and from Sabbath to Sabbath shall congregate from the face of the whole earth to celebrate, in Paradise, the praise of their Creator. J. N. A.