To be sure, there is no shortage of misunderstood and/or misapplied passages of Scripture. Near the top of that list, we find the account of the Thief on the Cross.
Whether it is being used to suggest that believers don’t need to be baptized, that obedience is unnecessary in salvation, or even that we die and go to heaven as disembodied spirits, this event is probably one of the most popular within all of Scripture.
In this article, I am going to explain exactly why the passage cannot be used to prove any of the previously mentioned beliefs. Further, I will explain what the passage can teach us, as well as what we can understand about the events of the story itself.
Let’s start with the latter and work our way backwards.
________________
The Background
Only the Gospel of Luke contains the events surrounding the Thief on the Cross:
“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, ‘Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ And he said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk. 23:39-43).
While the figure who responded favorably to Jesus is popularly referred to as the “Thief on the Cross,” we do not know with certainty that either of the criminals were indeed thieves. Some have supposed that,[1] but we only know they were criminals who were likely being crucified for crimes against the empire.
For this reason, I will now refer to this individual simply as a “criminal” rather than a thief.
Just prior to this passage, Jesus is being ruthlessly mocked and belittled by the Roman soldiers and other bystanders. It is then that one of the two criminals takes his shot at Jesus, questioning his messianic title and his ability to overcome the dire predicament. This is when the key part of the account takes place. The other criminal took to Jesus’ defense, admitting his own guilt, proclaiming Jesus’ innocence and, most importantly, showing his belief that Jesus is indeed the world’s Messiah: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
As a result of the man’s faith, Christ responds with this affirmation: ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
________________
Misapplying the Text: Baptism
Now that we have a brief background in place, we can evaluate how this passage has been understood over time. As previously mentioned, this event is used to promote a wide variety of teachings that it simply does not support.
Let’s start with the issue of baptism. For ages, people have pointed to the criminal as evidence that one does not need to be baptized to be saved.
The argument always goes that, if baptism is required in salvation, then the criminal could not have been saved. Since the text clearly illustrates that he was, baptism cannot be necessary.
The problem with this view is that it uses a rare exception—a biblical anomaly—to prove a general rule for how salvation operates. In other words, something that may be true in a particular instance does not make it universally applicable to all people and in all generations.
Regarding baptism, we would need to look at passages that are intended to instruct believers as a whole. There are indeed explicit commands that those who have placed their faith in Christ need to go and be baptized. For more on this, I have written extensively about the necessity of baptism here.
This gets us to the final point about using the criminal to prove that baptism is unnecessary. If we are talking about entry into salvation—that is, how one initially becomes saved—then it is accurate the baptism is not necessary. The criminal does prove that. However, here is the problem: for nearly all people, there is a life to be lived after conversion.
Put another way, there is the process of abiding in salvation. I have made a very helpful video (I think) that discusses our part in salvation.
The short of it is that, had the criminal been able to continue with his life, he would have been expected to be baptized just like all other believers. Since he died that very day, there was no opportunity to do so. Given this situation, it is not exegetically forthright to apply the criminal’s experience to those—that is, virtually everyone else—who continue to live after conversion.
____________
Misapplying the Text: Obedience is Unnecessary
Another thing the event is used to prove is that salvation has nothing to do with our obedience to Jesus. Since the criminal had lived a life of debauchery—as we at least assume—and was saved simply through his belief in Jesus in that instant, some reason that our salvation has nothing to do with our obedience.
Now, this is part of a greater doctrine that is derived—completely erroneously, in my understanding—from various passages of Scripture. It is often called “Free Grace” or “Hyper Grace” theology. I show the heresy in this doctrine in the same video mentioned above in regard to baptism.
(Please see that video if you want more details about the Free Grace doctrine. I believe this to be the greatest heresy going today.)
The simple truth is that using the criminal to prove that obedience is unnecessary in salvation fails for the very same reasons that the baptism argument does. This event is a biblical anomaly, where an individual placed his faith in Jesus but did not have the chance to continue living. The Bible is replete—absolutely loaded—with clear teachings proving that both faith and obedience is necessary in salvation.
My article on faith and works illustrates this clearly.
As with the baptism example, this would only be the case for those who never had a chance to live after conversion. In other words, we would be dealing with “death-bed conversions” almost exclusively. While there are no true statistics to look at on the matter, we understand such events to be exceedingly rare.
Those who reject Christ throughout their lives rarely see the light in their last days or hours, largely because a hardening of the heart has taken place by their consistent and willful rejection of Jesus.
______________
Misapplying the Text: The Soul Departs to Heaven at Death
There is a final belief that this passage is used to promote, and it’s a great deal more complex. This is the view that, because the criminal is thought to have gone directly to heaven (paradise) immediately following his death, that all believers also do so. This belief is based upon the following verse:
“Jesus answered him, ‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk. 23:43).
I have covered the full context of this declaration and the issues with how it’s typically understood extensively in this book. To fully understand this problem, it takes a great deal of unpacking.
However, let me briefly summarize some of the key problems and provide other articles I have made specifically on these topics. The first—and really, the biggest—issue is that the overall biblical teachings about the afterlife contradict the idea that believers die and instantly depart to heaven. Likewise, Scripture does not teach that non-believers die and immediately depart to hell.
Overwhelmingly, the Bible—from front to back—teaches that death is the absence of life, and that death is best compared to sleep. The sleep comparisons cannot be missed (see this article), and we can understand the main reasons why as follows:
- Both (death and sleep) are unconscious modes of existence.
- Both are characterized by the lack of temporal recognition.
- Both are merely temporary in nature.
The second issue with this view is that it makes the resurrection events (Jesus’ aside) recorded in Scripture both meaningless and illogical. As I explain in this article, titled Jesus Wept. Lazarus Should Have, Jesus would have been doing the numerous people he raised from the dead a terrible disservice: if, that is, they were actually living in a place of bliss after death.
They would have been living in a more preferable existence (like heaven), only to be put back on earth to later die again.
Another problem is that the passages that are seen to suggest immediate life somewhere after death are often contradictory, if taken this way. In this article, I show why one cannot put such passages together to form a coherent view of the afterlife. Simply put, we cannot go to Abraham’s Bosom and heaven/paradise at the same time.
This is a major problem.
Finally—and I could mention many other issues (again, check this book)—the very idea that “we” are something like a soul trapped within a body is both unscriptural and illogical. Among the myriad problems with this view is what I call “soul damage.” That is, if we are really immaterial souls living within a physical body, then our personalities should not be affected by physical issues like brain trauma.
This is a deep issue, so I also have a blog covering this.
For all these reasons—and those not mentioned here—using the criminal on the cross to prove that all believers die and go to heaven is not exegetically sound. This is not to mention the fact that, like the matters of baptism and the necessity of obedience in salvation, we cannot use a biblical anomaly to prove the general rule about anything.
______________
Conclusion
If the previous beliefs cannot be justified in the account of the Criminal on the Cross, then what can we really learn from it?
First, we do learn that placing one’s faith in Jesus as Lord is the entry point—again, the entry point—into salvation. In that event, we are justified (declared righteous) in God’s sight and our sins are forgiven. Faith alone forgives sins and ushers us into God’s family.
However—and I simply must emphasize this again—that is where the process begins. As I point out in this video, we then must, as Jesus said, carry our cross and follow him (Mt. 16:24). The criminal proved how salvation begins, but he was unable to show us how it continues.
Another thing the story shows us is that it is possible to repent and turn to Christ late in life, even for hardened criminals and those near death. As previously stated, I do not personally believe this occurs frequently. This is chiefly because we often become too hardened to do so in consistently rejecting God. However, we do see that it can be done through the criminal’s miraculous turnaround, as well as through select others we have observed.
Lastly, it proves the overwhelming mercy that God has upon humanity. Even those who reject Him throughout their lives can—unless reprobate—be accepted into the Kingdom if they so desire to humble themselves before the Lord.
In summary, the account of the Criminal on the Cross is truly miraculous and empowering. If we are careful not to mutilate its meaning, then we can gain great insight and comfort in the man’s salvation, what it means about us and most importantly, what it tells us about the mercies of God.
–
[1] See the Pulpit Commentary: “Many commentators suppose that these, were companions of that Bar-Abbas the robber who had just been released. They were not ordinary thieves, but belonged to those companies of brigands, or revolted Jews, which in those troublous times were so numerous in Palestine.”
Angels-Aliens 