The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

IV. Meaning Completely Altered by Position of Comma

1. PUNCTUATION CONSTITUTES EXEGESIS—RIGHT OR WRONG

But the main problem, technically, is whether the adverb “to day” [semeron, “this day,” or “today”] qualifies “say,” or “shalt be.” If it qualifies “say,” all is harmonious; but if it qualifies “shalt be,” there is sharp discord with the rest of Scripture. We would stress the point that there were absolutely no punctuation marks in the original. And as punctuation marks were not introduced until many centuries after the New Testament was written, it is evident that the punctuation of the Bible is therefore entirely human and variable, and not inspired. But that is not all. The meaning of a text may be completely changed by the wrong position of a comma. Take for example: “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12). CFF1 278.1

If the comma is wrongly placed after “sins,” the passage says that Jesus “for ever sat down on the right hand of God”—and thus will never come again to this world. But when it is rightly placed after “for ever,” then the passage says that after Christ had offered Himself as the final, once-for-all sacrifice, He then “sat down on the right hand of God; ... till his enemies be made his footstool,” when He returns at His second advent. CFF1 278.2

Similarly with Luke 23:43. If the comma be placed after “to day,” the text is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, and no longer teaches that the thief went to Heaven that day to be with Christ—who, be it again noted, did not ascend until some forty-three days after the crucifixion. It is thus obvious that punctuation is a definite factor in exegesis. And in this instance (of Luke 23:43) the comma makes the exegesis contradictory and controvertive. In fact, it is, instead, an unwitting case of eisegesis. But one part of God’s Word must never be arrayed against another. CFF1 278.3

2. PLACING OF COMMA DETERMINES MEANING

We now present the problem sentence in three contrasting forms: (1) as it appeared originally, that is, without any man-made punctuation; (2) as it appears in the A.V. and most English translations, and is made to support the Innate-Immortality concept, because of the position of the comma, injected by the Immortal-Soulist translators, between “thee” and “to day”; and (3) as the sentence is punctuated with the comma following “to day.” Thus the text conforms to the general teaching of Scripture. In this way, by the simple shifting of the man-made comma, harmony, beauty, and truth are re-established. Compare the three: CFF1 278.4

(1) “Verily I say unto thee to day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” CFF1 279.1

(2) “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (3) “Verily I say unto thee to day, Shalt thou be with me in paradise.” CFF1 279.2

We need have no hesitation in shifting the comma from the place in which the human transcribers and translators saw fit to place it—when it avoids the contradiction of a doctrine God has so clearly revealed. And there is no rule of the Greek language to prevent the placing of the comma after, instead of before, “to day,” when so required to avoid a contradiction. And the Scriptures themselves demand just that in order to preserve the unity of the Word. CFF1 279.3