p. 678 | The Sabbath-School by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 13, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 43.

The Sabbath-School.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—DEC. 6.

When Christ was crucified, who were put to death with him? Luke 23:32, 33.
While they were hanging on the cross, what did one of the thieves do? Verse 39.
What did the other one do? Verse 40.
With what words did he rebuke his companion? Verses 40, 41.
To whom did the penitent thief then address himself? Verse 42.
What request did he make? Verse 42.
What reply did Jesus make? Verse 43.
What is in the midst of paradise? Rev. 2:7.
By the side of what river is the tree of life? Rev. 22:1, 2.
From what does the river of life proceed? Id.
Then since both the tree and the river of life are in Paradise, where is God's throne?
When people go to Paradise, into whose presence do they go?
How long after Christ's crucifixion was the resurrection? 1 Cor. 15:3, 4.
On the morning of the resurrection what did he say to one of his disciples? John 20:17.
If he had not yet ascended to the Father, could he have been in Paradise on the day of his crucifixion?
Since Christ cannot deceive, can it be that he intended to meet the thief in Paradise three days before?
If not, why did he use the word "to-day"?
At what time did the thief want to be remembered? Luke 23:42.
When does Christ have his kingdom? Matt. 25:31.
And when will all who believe on him be with him? John 14:3.
Then to what time did the penitent thief look forward?
Will his request then be granted notwithstanding he is now dead? 1 Thess. 4:15-17.

The lesson this week covers that much-discussed passage, Christ's answer to the thief on the cross. Comments on this subject need not be extended to any great length, for if the texts referred to are each read carefully, and a comprehensive view of them all is then taken, there can be no difficulty in arriving at the true interpretation.

In the first place we must consider the present and previous circumstances of the malefactor, and what it was for which he asked. One source of the popular error on this subject is the supposition that the thief had never before heard of Christ. Such a supposition is not probable. The wonderful thing about his action was the faith which he manifested. But faith comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17), and in no other way. So then the thief must have heard of Christ and his mission. While others, even his chosen disciples, thought that Christ's career was ended, and that there was no hope of his saving any one, the thief grasped the great truths which Jesus had been trying to impress upon his followers, of a resurrection and a future coming in glory, when he would reward every man according to his deeds. In harmony with this new-born hope, the penitent thief exclaimed, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

It is evident that whatever might happen to the thief that day would not be in answer to his request; for Christ did not have his kingdom that day. He himself had likened the kingdom of Heaven to a nobleman that "went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." In the seventh of Daniel we learn that the kingdom is not given to the Son of man until all earthly kingdoms have run their course. When he receives the kingdom he will return. So he says, "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Matt. 25:31. And therefore Christians are instructed still to pray, "Thy kingdom come;" as yet they are only "heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love him." It is worthy of note in this connection that, according to Griesbach, Luke 23:42 should read, "Lord, remember me in the day of thy coming."

The next point to be noted is what the Lord promised. It was, "Thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Where and what is Paradise? A few words in answer must suffice. Paul plainly intimates (2 Cor. 12:2-4), that it is in, or corresponds to, the third heaven. We can identify it still more closely. In Rev. 2:7 we learn that the tree of life is "in the midst of the Paradise of God." In Rev. 22:1, 2, we learn further that the tree of life is on either side of the river of life. Then the river of life must also be in Paradise. From this same passage we also learn that the river of life proceeds from the throne of God, thus showing that the throne of God is in the midst of the Paradise of God. Whoever goes to Paradise must necessarily be in the presence of God. Christ's promise to the thief, then, was virtually this: "Thou shalt be with me in the presence of God."

Now what about the fulfillment of that promise? Was it fulfilled that day? or is its fulfillment still future? We can determine this in two ways: (1) By considering, as we have done, what an answer to the thief's request would imply, and (2) By examining the actual facts in the case. By the first we learned that if Christ intended his promise as a direct answer to the thief's request, then its fulfillment must be still future, because Christ's coming is still future. Now as to the recorded facts. On "the third day" after the crucifixion, as Mary, suddenly recognizing her risen Lord, was about to embrace him, Jesus said: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." John 20:17. This at once settles the matter, for if he had not ascended to the Father, of course he did not go to Paradise—into his presence—three days before. But it is not possible that Jesus should have prevaricated in the least, for "he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." (1 Pet. 2:22); and therefore if he did not go to Paradise on the day of his crucifixion, it must be that he did not promise the thief that he should be with him there that day. In the light of the facts of the case we are forced to conclude that they who think that Jesus and the thief met in Paradise on the day of the crucifixion, do not understand the Saviour's words to the thief.

Consider the circumstances under which Jesus uttered those words. He had told his disciples that he was the one spoken of by the prophets, who was to occupy the throne of David. He had told the twelve that when he should sit on the throne of his glory they also should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Their hopes had been raised to the highest pitch when, but a few days before, he had entered Jerusalem in a triumphant manner, while the multitude waved palm branches before him. They had thought that their hour of triumph had come, and that he was then to assume his kingdom. Instead of that, however, they had seen him taken by a cruel mob, hurried unresistingly from judgment-seat to judgment-seat, subjected to the most brutal insults, beaten, spit upon, and scourged, and finally, fainting under the load of a heavy cross, to which he was now fastened with huge nails, dying the death of a malefactor. The hopes of the disciples were blasted, and while they had all confidence in the integrity of their Master, they thought he had been deceived. To them the future looked dark and gloomy. Not so with Jesus. From the beginning of his earthly ministry he had foreseen this event; and his confidence in God's power to raise him from the dead, and in the final success of his mission,—that through suffering he should bring many sons into glory,—remained unshaken. And so when the penitent thief, with a faith that has seldom, if ever, been equaled, preferred his request, the mind of Jesus reached forward to the consummation of his work, and like a king he replied in words calculated to strengthen the faith of the petitioner, "I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Truly so royal a gift was never before promised under such untoward circumstances.

"But," some one will say, "the punctuation will not allow of such interpretation." Well, we have found that the words of Jesus himself will not allow any other interpretation, so what shall be done? Shall we preserve the present punctuation, and thus make Jesus contradict himself? or shall we alter the punctuation so that the passage will be in harmony with the after statement of Jesus, and with the rest of the inspired record? Reason and reverence would say the latter, because the punctuation is only the work of men, while the words of Jesus cannot disagree. If we just imagine ourselves back in the time when Luke wrote these words, or else that the art of punctuation has not yet been invented, our difficulty will vanish. Remembering that there were no marks of punctuation when the Bible was written, we can read the words of Jesus so that they will harmonize with other statements of Scripture. We will not say to change the position of the comma, but just drop it out, leaving the text as it was originally written. Then read it, making the emphasis where a due regard for the harmony of the sacred word would suggest that it be made. Surely there is no more of presumption in dropping out a comma than there was in placing it there in the first place. In fact, there is no presumption in either case. Those who placed it there doubtless thought that it was necessary to the sense. We, with clearer light on God's word, see that it destroys the sense, and read it in harmony with that clearer light. E. J. W.