Dispelling Popular Myths about “the Thief on the Cross”

      First of all, the two men who were crucified on either side of Jesus were not common thieves. A thief is someone who secretly removes an item from your pocket without your knowledge or approval, or one who sneaks into your house while you’re away on vacation and steals your possessions. The crimes of the men executed with Jesus were much more sinister. They are generically referred to as “criminals” (kakourgōn) in Luke 23:39, but in Mark 15:27 they are more specifically identified as lēstai, i.e. “robbers” or “bandits.” In other words, they had used brute force to carry out their crimes and were therefore violent criminals. In fact, the same word is used to describe Barabbas (John 18:40), who had been arrested “with his fellow rebels; they had committed murder in the rebellion” (Mark 15:7 NKJV). Seeing that Jesus took the place of Barabbas, it is reasonable to suspect that the other two men who were crucified with him were Barabbas’ partners in crime.

     While both convicted felons initially participated in the reviling of Jesus (Matthew 27:44), in the course of time one of them seems to have had a change of heart. He said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42 NKJV). Now simply calling Jesus “Lord” is in itself insufficient (cf. Matthew 7:21; Luke 6:46), but the intriguing thing is that he knew about the Lord’s kingdom. We will consider this further below.

     Jesus’ reply to the penitent criminal’s request was as follows: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The record pretty much speaks for itself. Nevertheless, for some curious reason, this account has been completely removed from its context by certain religionists in an attempt to establish a precedent for salvation devoid of obedience, particularly baptism. The argument goes something like this: “The thief on the cross was saved without having been baptized, therefore baptism is not essential to salvation.”

     An initial response is the simple fact that the scriptures clearly teach that baptism is a necessary step in the salvation process (see Acts 2:37-41; 22:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.), therefore any interpretation that suggests otherwise must be wrong. Furthermore, is it legitimate to confidently affirm that this man had never been baptized? From the biblical evidence what would be a more reasonable inference?

     The man clearly had knowledge of the Lord’s kingdom (Luke 23:42), so how was this knowledge attained? In all four Gospel accounts, of all the words recorded that Jesus spoke from the cross, nothing is said about the kingdom. However, John the baptizer had preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matthew 3:2). In response, “Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (vv. 5-6). Further, Jesus himself had preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17). As He proclaimed “the gospel of the kingdom,” his influence reached as far north as Syria and as far south as Idumea, and great “multitudes followed Him – from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordon” (Matt. 4:23-25; cf. Mark 2:7-8). Not only did baptisms result from his preaching, but they exceeded the numbers of those baptized by John (John 3:22-26; 4:1-2). The Lord’s reach had extended even further by sending out multiplied dozens of his disciples throughout the regions of Galilee and Judea, propagating the same gospel message (Matthew 9:35–10:7; Luke 10:1-11).

     Considering the evidence, can anyone say with full assurance that the man under consideration was definitely never baptized? An alleged precedent is not a genuine precedent when it is unprovable and even questionable. Admittedly no one can say for sure either way, even though it is certainly within the realm of plausibility that he was baptized. Notwithstanding deceptive claims to the contrary, at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter, especially when we consider this final point.

     Baptism is an integral part of the Christian system, which was not inaugurated prior to the Lord’s death and resurrection (Matthew 28:18-20; cf. Romans 6:3-5). The baptisms before the cross were preparatory for the approaching kingdom (Matthew 3:1-6; John 3:1–4:2) but not an established component of the preceding Mosaic system. In fact, Christ’s death on the cross was the transitional point between the old and the new (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 9:15-17). Since Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), and the crucified robber was living under the old covenant system of the Jews, and the Lord’s eventual death covered the sins of those living prior to the new covenant (Hebrews 9:15), the account in Luke 23:39-43 is readily explicable and easily harmonizes with the rest of scripture. Any other interpretation creates unresolvable problems.

     Seeing that no one on earth today is in the physical presence of Jesus or is living at a time when the new covenant teachings were not in force, the so-called “thief on the cross” argument is irrelevant. There are numerous examples of conversions recorded in the book of Acts (inclusive of baptism) that set the precedent. When anything different is asserted by professed Bible-believers, it sure gives the impression of grasping at straws in order to justify a preconceived idea. “And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned’” (Mark 16:15-16).

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Barabbas, Are You Sure the Thief on the Cross Wasn't Baptized?, Baptism of John, Hypothetical Faith

Saw this on the internet: "I want to be saved like the thief on the cross" said no one in the book of Acts.

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?q=thief+on+the+cross&safe=off&biw=1260&bih=623&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIrfD4rrndxwIVys2ACh0vtA-L&dpr=1#imgrc=mdwyAfIEy5yTRM%3A

Are You Sure the Thief on the Cross Wasn’t Baptized?

     The two criminals who were crucified on either side of Jesus initially participated in reviling him (Matthew 27:44). In the course of time, however, one of them had a change of heart. He believed in and reverenced God and recognized that he and his corrupt associate deserved punishment and that Jesus was entirely innocent (Luke 23:40-41). According to the majority of manuscripts the contrite felon addressed Jesus as “Lord” (v. 42a), although due to textual variation a number of English versions have omitted the expression (ASV, ESV, etc.). Nevertheless, simply calling Jesus Lord, of itself, is insufficient (Matthew 7:21).

     The request the man goes on to make is intriguing: “remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42b).¹ How did he know about the Lord’s kingdom? Of all the words spoken by Jesus from the cross, there is no record of the kingdom having been mentioned. So when and by whom had the offender learned about it, and what prompted Christ to confirm his place in Paradise (v. 43)? By investigating the biblical record more thoroughly (particularly the third chapters of Matthew, Mark, and John), the groundwork is laid for unraveling this apparent mystery.

HELPFUL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

     “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!’² …. Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:1-2, 5-6). Extremely large numbers were baptized as a result of John’s preaching, and certain religious leaders are the only known exceptions (v. 7; 21:25; Luke 7:30).

     Then we read in Matthew 4:17, “From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’.” While Jesus taught the same message, the impact was even greater and more far-reaching. “And Jesus went about all Galilee … preaching the gospel of the kingdom …. Then His fame went throughout all Syria …. Great multitudes followed Him–from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan [viz. Perea]” (vv. 23-25). And there’s more.

     “But Jesus withdrew with His disciples to the sea. And a great multitude from Galilee followed Him, and from Judea and Jerusalem and Idumea and beyond the Jordan; and those from Tyre and Sidon [viz. the region of Phoenicia in southern Syria], a great multitude …” (Mark 3:7-8). The doctrine of the Lord’s kingdom had spread as far north as Syria, as far east as Decapolis and Perea, as far south as Idumea, and all the territories in between – an area of approximately 18,000 square miles (29,000+ sq. km). And there’s more.

     In John 3 we read of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. Like many of the Lord’s early disciples, Nicodemus was blinded to heavenly truths because of his earthly focus. He was confusing spiritual birth with physical birth, so Jesus explains: “Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (v. 5). God has always expected both internal and external responses from those who seek his favor, involving (a) submissive hearts, and (b) obedience to the divine will.³ If to be born of the spirit is the internal aspect of conversion,⁴ what does it mean to be born of water? Let’s keep reading.

     While Jesus goes on to emphasize both inward and outward expressions of faith (vv. 16, 21),⁵ consider what happens next. “After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized” (v. 22). Why did Jesus baptize? Because unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. “Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salem, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized…. And they came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified–behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!” (vv. 23-26).

     Moving on to John chapter 4, we read the following: “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples) …” (vv. 1-2). When the masses responded to Jesus’ preaching about the kingdom, his disciples did the baptizing. Further, the Lord sent out the twelve and later at least seventy more of his loyal followers to disseminate the same message (Matthew 9:35–10:7; Luke 10:1-11). John the Baptist had taught about the kingdom and baptized multitudes in Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan. Jesus and his followers baptized even more throughout a much greater geographical area (see above).

BAPTIZED OR NOT?

     Now back to the dying convict who requested of Jesus, “remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). It is no mystery that he knew about the Lord’s kingdom. How could he have not known?! The question is, had he or had he not been baptized in conjunction with this knowledge? Although absolute proof is beyond our grasp, which scenario is more likely?

     Many, who have bought into the abridged doctrine of salvation by faith alone (apart from obedience), often appeal to the example of “the thief on the cross” in an attempt to refute the necessity of baptism. But is it legitimate to assume and then boldly assert that this malefactor was never baptized, and somehow this sets a precedent for modern-day conversions?

     Here is what we know from the scriptures. The man had knowledge of the Lord’s kingdom. This is not surprising, seeing that for more than three years the message of the kingdom had saturated the entire region. And this message included instruction about repentance and baptism. Myriads had been baptized by John, while Jesus and his disciples baptized even more. It is neither impossible nor improbable that the man whom the Lord welcomed into Paradise had in fact been baptized. But don't miss this next point.

     Jesus affirmed that there is no access to God’s kingdom without being born of water and the spirit (John 3:5), and he subsequently enjoined repentance and baptism on all who received his teaching (John 3:22–4:2). He then granted entrance into this kingdom to a man who had apparently received that message (Luke 23:42-43). Either Jesus made an exception, or this man had met the necessary conditions. Could this be an example of restoration rather than conversion? (compare Acts 8:9-24)

WHAT IF …?

     Admittedly there is no explicit reference to this criminal having been baptized. Still, he was living under the old covenant of the Jews, and Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Christ’s new covenant was not inaugurated before he died (Hebrews 9:15). Then following the events at Golgotha, baptism is likened to the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-6; 1 Peter 3:21). Under the new covenant of Christ, baptism is the defining point at which penitent believers become disciples (Matthew 28:18-20), have their sins forgiven (Acts 2:37-38), receive salvation (Mark 16:16), and are granted entrance into God’s kingdom (Colossians 1:13-14; 2:12; cf. John 3:5).

     No one on earth today is in the physical presence of Jesus, or is living under the old Jewish covenant, or is exempt from the requirements of Christ’s new covenant. Therefore, appealing to the example of “the thief on the cross” in an effort to dismiss the requisite of baptism is presumptuous and reckless, and it demonstrates an ignorance of (or disregard for?) the overall context of scripture.

     “‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen” (Matthew 28:19-20).

--Kevin L. Moore      

    

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the NKJV, with added emphasis in bold type and added words in [square brackets].

     ² Note that “the kingdom of heaven” is the same as “the kingdom of God” (cf. Matthew 19:23-24). See The Kingdom of God Part 1.

     ³ See Exodus 25:2; 35:5, 21, 29; Deuteronomy 4:29-30; 5:29; 6:4-9; 8:2; 10:2; 11:13; 26:16; 30:2, 10, 14; Joshua 22:5; 1 Samuel 12:20, 24; 1 Kings 2:4; 8:23, 61; 9:4; 14:8; 2 Kings 20:3; 23:3, 25; 2 Chronicles 29:31; 31:21; 34:31; Ezra 7:10; Psalm 34:15-18; 86:11, 12; 111:1; 119:2, 7, 10, 34, 69, 112; Isaiah 26:9; 38:3; 51:7; 66:2; Jeremiah 17:10; Luke 8:15; John 4:23-24; Romans 1:9; 6:17; 7:6, 22; 12:11; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Ephesians 4:21-24; 5:19; 6:6; Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 1:22-23; cf. Psalm 78:8; Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8-9; Hebrews 3:7-19.

     ⁴ The Greek word pneuma can have reference to either the human spirit or the Holy Spirit, and English translators have to make judgment calls as to whether the lower case “s” or the upper case “S” is used. See Soul and Spirit. There are other occurrences in John where pneuma clearly refers to man’s inner spirit (4:23-24; 11:33; 13:21). Compare also Hebrews 10:22; 1 Peter 1:22-23; 3:20-21.
     ⁵ See A Closer Look at John 3:16. 

Related Posts: Dispelling Popular Myths, Baptism of John, Questions About Baptism Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Image credit: http://www.hartian.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Three-Crosses-on-Kreuzberg-Mountain-Bavaria-Germany.jpg

The Twelve Apostles (Part 13): Judas Iscariot

     Judas Iscariot was the son of a man called Simon (John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). Judas is always listed last among the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16), and his name is naturally omitted from the final listing in Acts 1:13. The Anglicized “Judas” is the Greek Ioudas from the Hebrew Y^ehûdâh (Judah), meaning “God is praised” (see Gen. 29:35).¹ There are at least nine persons recorded in the New Testament known by this name.² It was very popular among first-century AD Palestinian Jews presumably because of the lingering influence of Judas Maccabaeus, the leader of the second-century BC Maccabean revolution.³

     The significance of the attribution Iskariōth (Iscariot) is not certain. It could be based on the Hebrew Κ-Qrîyôth, meaning “man of Kerioth,” thus identifying where Judas or his family was from.⁴ Kerioth was a town in southern Judea (Josh. 15:25), about ten miles (16 km) south of Hebron. If the proposal is valid, then he was the only one of Christ’s original apostles who was not a native Galilean (cf. Acts 2:7). Another possibility is that the term is derived from the Latin sicarios (pl. sicarii) in reference to the radical band of Jewish assassins akin to the Zealots. The background of Judas would then be comparable to that of Simon the Zealot and perhaps also Thaddaeus Judas (a.k.a. Judas the Zealot).⁵ Other theories suggest a derivation of the name from various Hebrew or Aramaic root words, describing something about his character (‘liar’), his appearance (‘ruddy’), or his infamous deeds (‘deliverer’).⁶

     Judas served as the group’s treasurer (John 12:6; 13:29), responsible for the funds probably donated by those supportive of Jesus’ work (cf. Luke 8:3). Unfortunately Judas’ lack of integrity led him to embezzle money for his own selfish gain (John 12:6b). He was the textbook hypocrite. He preached repentance (Mark 6:12) while he himself was unrepentant (John 12:4-6). He administered baptism (John 4:2) but neglected the cleansing of his own soul (John 13:11). He healed the physically sick (Luke 9:7) as his own spiritual health declined (Matt. 26:14-16). He cast out demons (Mark 6:13) yet allowed Satan into his own heart (Luke 22:3).

     Judas was afforded privileges and opportunities available only to a select few. He was welcomed into the Lord’s immediate circle of companions. He received special training and instruction. He traveled with Jesus and ate with Jesus, and they worshiped and prayed together. Jesus was humble enough to wash Judas’ dirty feet (John 13:5) and gracious enough to call him “friend” (Matt. 26:50). At the final meal they ate together, in an environment of intimacy and trust (cf. Psa. 41:9), Judas was close enough to the Lord to share the same dipping bowl (Mark 14:17-20).

     When Judas slipped away from his brethren that fateful night (John 13:30), he missed out on all the promises and exhortations and prayers of John 13:31–17:26. He sold out his Master for the price of a lowly slave (Matt. 26:14-15; cf. Ex. 21:32). He was remorseful but not penitent, and after hanging himself, his bloated corpse eventually fell and burst open as a sickening and degrading testimonial of a wasted life (Matt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:18). His treasonous wages were then used to purchase a potter’s field called Akel Dama or “field of blood” for burying strangers (Matt. 27:5-10; Acts 1:18-19). Judas traded his immortal soul for a handful of coins he could not keep. He never saw the risen Christ, he did not receive the Holy Spirit, and he missed out on experiencing the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1, 31; John 7:39). Worst of all, he forfeited his eternal home in heaven (John 14:3; 17:12).

     Evidently the Lord considers even a dishonest hypocrite deserving of a chance, and Judas was given more chances than most. The only reason Satan was able to enter Judas’ heart is because Judas made room for him (Luke 22:3; cf. Jas. 4:7-10). Consequently, Judas Iscariot will forever be remembered as “a devil” (John 6:70) and “the son of perdition” (John 17:12). In contrast, his eleven colleagues went on to give the remainder of their lives in faithful service to Christ, securing not only an abiding legacy but ultimately an everlasting inheritance.

     What are you doing with the precious opportunities the Lord has afforded you?

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The Hebrew Y^ehûdâh (Judah) is the name of the fourth son of Jacob and Leah (Gen. 29:35) and the designation of the tribe and land of Judah (Josh. 15:20) and the southern part of the divided kingdom (1 Kings 12:23). Variants of the term were applied to the Jews (Ezra 4:12) and to the Roman province of Judea (Matt. 2:1, 22). See also Hebrew.

     ² Beyond the patriarch Judah, the name was also worn by two other ancestors of Jesus (Luke 3:26, 30, 33), a brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55), Judas Iscariot (Matt. 10:4), Judas not Iscariot (John 14:22), Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37), Judas of Damascus (Acts 9:11), and Judas Barsabas (Acts 15:22). This assumes that Judas son of James (Luke 6:16) and Judas not Iscariot (John 14:22) are the same person and that the Lord’s brother Judas is the author of the NT epistle of Jude.

     ³ See The NT Epistle of Judas, Ancient Terrorists, and Barabbas.

     ⁴ Some manuscripts of John 6:71 have interpreted Iskariōtou as apo Karuōtou (“from Kerioth”) in relation to Judas’ father Simon. See B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 21, 184, 204, 205; cf. 201.

     ⁵ See The 12 Apostles (Part 12): Simon Zelotes, and The 12 Apostles (Part 11): Thaddaeus Judas.

     ⁶ See BAGD 380-81; B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 21; L. Besserman, “Judas Iscariot,” DBTEL (1992): 418-20; “Judas Iscariot,” Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot>.

Related Posts: The 12 Apostles (Part 1)

Image credit: http://biblicaljoy.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/judas_iscariot_a.jpg