The Thief and Baptism

Eric has a colleague that thinks that the episode about “the thief on the cross” (Luke 23:39-45) demonstrates that one does not have to be baptized today in order to be saved. Eric wants to know whether or not that is the case.

Let's begin with what we do know about “the thief on the cross” . . .

First, we know that “the thief” lived before Christ's resurrection, so he lived under “the old law.” The book of Hebrews makes clear that the “old covenant” would be removed (fulfilled) in Christ, so the whole Levitical setup, with sacrifices of bulls and goats, a physical high priest and other priests, the physical tabernacle/temple setup, etc., etc. was to be done away. (Do read Hebrews 8:13; 9:1-10; 10:9-13; all of these texts make it clear that the whole “old law” setup was temporary and to make the way for a “better” setup in Jesus Christ, the anticipated Messiah.)

But, why is it important that “the thief” was under “the old law”? Well, for one, it is because “baptism” as God's method for contacting “remission of sins” was not yet given. A casual glance at Hebrews 11 shows that Abel's “faith” was obedient by offering sacrifice (Heb. 11:4), that Noah's “faith” was obedient by building an ark as God commanded (Heb. 11:7), that Abraham's “faith” was obedient by leaving his homeland to go to a new place as God commanded (Heb. 11:8) . . . Several other examples from Hebrews 11 could be documented . . . But, not one of the Old Testament “heroes” was “justified” or “obedient” by “being baptized.” That is because it is/was a commandment that did not come under the Old Law.

So, “the thief” was born before “baptism” was ever given as a universal command from God. But, isn't it interesting that many want to appeal to “the thief” but not other folks that were under the Old Law? This seems a bit quirky to me, I think. Why don't we hear of people wanting to be saved like Noah (by building an ark)? Or, like Abraham (by leaving home)? Why is it that “the thief” is always “singled out” and selected as the “ideal” for how to be saved?

Maybe, this whole line of thinking is misguided? Maybe, we should realize that “the thief” was under “the Old Law” and that the requirements under that Old Covenant are no longer binding. In fact, that covenant was “nailed to the cross” so that Christ could establish the “New Testament/Covenant” (cf. Col. 2:14; Mat. 26:28,29). Our question needs to be, “What does God want me to do under the New Covenant, on this side of the cross?” not “What did God want people under the Old Covenant to do on that side of the cross?”

Now, let's raise two significant points about what we do not know . . .

Second, we should observe that the nationality/ethnicity of “the thief” is unknown. There is very little data about “the thief” in the New Testament (a point that I'll draw our attention to again in a brief moment). But, why is the nationality/ethnicity of “the thief” important?

Well, when Jesus first began His ministry, He sent out His disciples to preach only to the Jews, the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mat. 10:5,6). In fact, He explicitly stated that His disciples were not yet to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans but only to the Jews (Mat. 10:5,6). In one place, Luke records that John's “baptism,” which was a preparation for the era after Jesus' resurrection, the New Covenant, was rejected by the Jews and thus they rejected God (cf. Luke 7:29,30). John's “baptism” in water – see John 3:23 – was “for the remission of sins” and was to “prepare the way” for Jesus Christ, who would not only “gospel” to the Jews but through the apostles and the New Testament church take “the gospel” to “all the world,” even “the Gentile nations” (cf. Mark 1:4; 16:15-20; Mat. 28:18-20).

Now, perhaps, it is reasonable to ask, “What was the thief's nationality?” If he were a Jew, then John's “baptism” would have been required of him, apparently (lest he, too, reject God [cf. Luke 7:29,30]), but if he were a non-Jew (Gentile; Samaritan [a Jew-Gentile half-breed]), then “baptism” was not even to be preached to him prior to the cross since Christ's “New Covenant” had not yet been initiated (cf. Mat. 26:28,29). Again, it is important to remind ourselves that we know that “the thief” lived before Christ's resurrection, but we don't know if he were Jewish or Gentile . . . and that makes all the difference! If the fellow were Jewish, then “baptism” would have been preached to him in the era just before Christ's death, burial and resurrection, but if the fellow were a Gentile, then “baptism” was actually forbidden as being preached (prematurely) to his race just yet. (Later, in “the New Covenant,” the significant point, that all are saved in the same way by grace-through-faith in calling upon the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism, is emphasized [cf. Acts 22:16; Rom. 10:12,13].)

So, whether “the thief” were Jewish or Gentile makes all the difference, but we simply don't have the data on the matter. And, this leads to another (connected) observation . . .

Third, we should observe that the baptismal status of “the thief” is unknown. (Maybe, he were a Jew and had been baptized previously?) Look, I have no evidence to suggest that “the thief” was baptized, but there is precisely the same amount of evidence to suggest that he was not baptized. Neither claim has any evidence; both are treated with absolute silence in the holy text. But, to illustrate, we ought to consider a few other questions . . .

Was “the thief” married? Did he own a camel? Did “the thief” have children? Did “the thief” live on the north side of town? All of these questions remain unanswered because the data is absolutely silent. Here's the point: we ought to tread very lightly in answering questions that the evidence does not support or in accepting claims that altogether lack evidence. To suggest that “the thief” was not baptized is bald assumption. (It is only an “anti-baptism-for-remission-of-sins” view that makes the tragic assumption that “the thief” was not baptized, but this is altogether without warrant.)

Again, I'll call our attention to our earlier point . . . In order to know about the baptismal status of “the thief,” we need to know something of his ethnicity, since he lived prior to the resurrection of Christ. But, we know nothing of the matter . . . But that shouldn't affect our conclusions either.

Let's see if we can't tie all of this up . . .

First, the New Testament is extraordinarily clear on the matter of baptism. One absolutely must place His faith in Jesus Christ and obey Him through being immersed in water in order to receive the remission of sins. Do read Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21. (There are hundreds of objections that this article has not treated; those other objections would need to be handled in another place. [If you have another objection or question that nags at you, feel free to drop me a line at drewleonard@live.com, and I'll be happy to correspond with and pray for you.])

Second, the situation of “the thief” simply cannot countermand the clear biblical teaching on “baptism.” Whatever we make of “the thief” and his episode, it cannot be “read against” the other passages that are quite clear on the matter (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). The accounts must harmonize lest the Bible be discarded for fraudulent behavior (contradiction).

Third, the situation of “the thief” has much more surrounding it than some let on. It often goes unnoticed that “the thief” was under “the Old Law” (which is a groundbreaking point – people before the New Covenant were in a different age and thus a different [preparatory] system – why don't we still keep the Sabbath, offer goats, use Levitical priests, etc.?!), but it rarely gets noticed that the ethnicity and baptismal status of the fellow are completely questionable. All of this casts some serious and necessary “new light” on the matter. The episode, then, can't be read as a casual and simple “accept Jesus into your heart” or “faith alone” salvation as over against the other biblical data. To read the text in such a way is extraordinarily naive and misguided.

Perhaps, we should be inclined to look to the book of Acts for an answer on what the earliest saints (following the resurrection of our Lord) did to be saved . . . Yes, I'm certain that the answer to that question is there. The question of “How must one be saved today, in the Christian era, the New Covenant era?” is to be answered not in passages before the cross (such as Luke 23:39-45) but in texts that came after and were given to make disciples of all men. Jesus prepared the way, fulfilled it and sent the Holy Spirit so the apostles to preach the full and revealed truth (see John 16:13). Nowhere do they preach a “faith alone” salvation as commonly accepted and believed by many – why, one text is explicitly opposed to such a view (cf. James 2:15-26)! – but rather, they have left the New Covenant to show what people on this side of the cross must do to convert by faith and to be obedient to Christ.

We should be like “the thief” (as is the same with Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.) in having the same, right penitent heart and faith in Jesus Christ. We differ from “the thief,” perhaps, in many respects. We must learn to distinguish and be good students. May God help us in our search for His soul-saving truth.

Feel free to reach out if something still bothers you here (drewleonard@live.com).