There are many who argue that the “sinner crucified beside
Jesus” was saved without being Baptised in/with water and/or born of the
Spirit. There is of course NO SCRIPTURE to support that claim. However there
are many indications given and other facts that do support the contrary. My
endeavour here is to establish that there is every likelihood that the sinner
in question had already been Baptised in water and was already a believer in
Jesus Christ and His doctrines.
Let us firstly establish a few
facts (within the limitations of what we are told/read).
1. Both John (the Baptist) and
Jesus were conceived by the will of God by the Holy Ghost. Two miraculous
conceptions, John to an elderly woman considered way past her child bearing
years (Elizabeth wife of Zechariah) and
Jesus to the Virgin Mary who was Betrothed to Joseph. Both were SENT by God,
but for different purposes. One was to Baptise with water unto Repentance and the
other to deliver His Word to His People with the Spirit of Truth, baptising
those who Believe with the Spirit of God for the forgiveness of sins with the
sacrifice of His own Blood sealing the New Covenant.
2. It is said that the Ministry
of Jesus Christ lasted three years and 6 months (3.5 years) from Jesus’ baptism
by John (the Baptist) unto His crucifixion.
3. Jesus was born 6 months after
John (the Baptist).
4. It was not allowed for someone
to become a Priest until they were thirty years old (30 years old), so Jesus
(being blameless) would have observed this Law and gone to the river Jordan to
be Baptised by John (the Baptist) not before turning 30 years old.
Now some may well be wondering
what those 4 points listed above have to do with the sinner on the cross? A
short answer would be a VERY GREAT DEAL.
Unlike the justice system(s) of
nowadays where one can drag-out execution of an original conviction with appeal
after appeal after appeal, the justice back in the days when Jesus walked upon
the Earth was swift and rights of appeal a rarity (Jesus’ and Paul’s treatment
were exceptions and not the rule). Jesus was taken into custody because of a
betrayal and conspiracy and was repeatedly acquitted of any wrong-doing (found
not worthy of death) and was only condemned to death because it was the will of
the Scribes and Pharisees (not Pilate nor Herod). Paul was not able to be
judged under the Law (Jewish Laws) as he claimed to be born a Roman and was
sent incarcerated to be judged in Rome. With this in mind and given that John
(the Baptist) had been Baptising in the river Jordan for maybe 6 months before
he Baptised Jesus and that Jesus had been Preaching the Gospel for 3 years and
6 months before being condemned to be crucified, then there was a period of no
less than 4 years (3.5 years + 0.5 years = 4 years) wherein the sinner could
have been Baptised prior to his conviction and sentencing carried-out with his
subsequent crucifixion along-side Jesus. Furthermore there were 3 years and 6
months when the sinner could have heard about the Gospel of Jesus and believed
on Him. To say that the sinner had not been Baptised in water or heard about
the Gospel of Jesus prior to his crucifixion would require one to believe that
the sinner (thief) had been held in captivity and incarcerated for 4 years prior
to his sentence being carried-out. Given the swiftness of punishment befitting
the crime in those days, being held-over for punishment for 4 or more years is
not only PREPOSTEROUS, it was just downright UNHEARD-OF.
Yes, the same could also be said
about the other (unrepentant) sinner as those circumstances would also be true
for him as well.
So here we have 3 condemned men
being crucified, the first is a thief that refuses to accept his punishment, is
unrepentant and would escape death by any means possible (even a miracle). The second also a thief who is
self-confessed as being worthy of death for his crime (repentant) and accepting
of his fate and who feared God, who spoke out against the unrepentant sinner and
acknowledged Jesus as the Lord and asked Jesus “Lord, remember me when thou
comest into thy Kingdom”. The third was
the Son of the Living God, who was condemned to death without a cause and
accepted his punishment without complaint, secure in the foreknowledge and
Faith therein that it was for that purpose to which he was born into the world.
Now in the entire chapter of Luke
23 it never mentions that either of the thieves were not Jews, so it can be
safely assumed that they were Jews because no distinction was made about them.
Also given the period of 4 years mentioned above, the thieves had plenty of
time prior to their incarceration and subsequent crucifixion, to receive the
Jewish right of Baptism in water unto repentance (thereby becoming a Disciple
of John the Baptist). Part of John the Baptist’s mission to Baptise God’s
People (the Jews) was to inform those he Baptised to seek Jesus who would
Baptise them with the Holy Ghost and believe on Him for the remission of their
sins. Finally, during that whole chapter never at any stage did anyone (not
even Jesus) teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the Kingdom of God or indeed
Life after death to either of the thieves.
In summary:
What we know for certain about
the second thief are these facts:
1. He was almost certainly a Jew
as he was condemned under the Jewish Law.
2. He was absolutely repentant of
his crime and had ample time prior to crucifixion to have confessed and been
Baptised unto repentance (water Baptism) prior to his incarceration.
3. He had a thorough
foreknowledge of the Kingdom of God, life after death and also knew that it was
the Lord Jesus who was beside him being crucified also.
4. He vehemently defended Jesus’
inaction of not interceding and saving them from their punishment.
5. He had confessed Jesus as his
Lord when he addressed Jesus as such.
Given the 5 points I have
highlighted above, there is in fact every reason to believe that the second
thief was actually a Disciple of Jesus’. Remember the only thing Jesus said to
the second thief was to reassure him that he was not going to perish that day.
And maybe the reason for that was because the second thief had already met all
that was required to be saved and that Luke who recorded the exchange between
Jesus and the second thief was merely unaware of it and hence failed to mention
it.
Finally, I think I have
highlighted that there is sufficient reasonable doubt that nobody can
conclusively say that the second thief was saved without being Baptised in
water, let alone believed the Word of Truth and declared Jesus as his Lord. YES
The second thief was not Baptised when he was on the cross, BUT that doesn’t
mean that he wasn’t Baptised and a Believer prior to being crucified.
God Bless you all, your Brother
in Christ Jesus,
Christopher John Petersen (Ad finem fidelis)
© by Christopher John Petersen