What About the Thief on the Cross?

Years ago, an individual by the name of John Ankerberg hosted a debate for the world to see. Certainly, with this debate being nationally televised one might think the discourse was between a pair of political candidates or that a cultural issue was the topic of discussion, however that was not the case at all. Instead, the discussion was far more serious than that as it was a debate on whether or not baptism saves. Without a doubt, with this being such a heavily debated topic, Mr. Ankerberg could have chosen a vast number of individuals to participate, but he decided to go with two men from the church of Christ, and two from the Baptist church. Throughout the hour and fifteen-minute debate there was definitely a lot said, but it was within the first two minutes of the Baptist’s opening statement that Dr. James Bjornstad mentioned the thief on the cross. Truly, the thief on the cross has become one of the main arguments to deny the essential nature of baptism. One could almost say, of the souls that have passed from this life to the next, there is not a soul talked about more than the thief on the cross. In fact, it is almost as if every individual who denies the necessity of baptism has one question on their mind, “What about the thief on the cross?” Having said that, let us consider a few things about this criminal who was cleansed to better understand the subject.

First, we need to remember while Jesus was on earth He had the power to forgive sins. In Mark 2, Jesus performed one of His most famous miracles, the healing of the paralytic. Everyone remembers the crowded house, everyone remembers the friends who lowered the man down through the roof, but very few people remember the statement of Christ made in verse 10. Jesus said, “The Son of Man has the power on earth to forgive sins.” You see, the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized in order to obtain salvation, because by the command of Christ he was saved (Luke 23:43). Just because Jesus told one man 2,000 years ago, “you will be with Me in paradise” does not mean the same rule applies today. While on earth Jesus had the power to forgive sins, and that is exactly what He did for the thief on the cross.

Second, we need to remember the law of Christ was not put into effect until Jesus died. This was the very point of the Hebrews writer when he said, “For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives” (Heb. 9:16, 17). With that in mind, the thief on the cross lived and died under the law of Moses, but today we are under the law of Christ (Gal. 3:24, 25). So, is it really logical to compare our salvation with the thief’s considering we are under a different law?

Finally, we need to remember the thief could have been baptized in John’s baptism. For the amount of inspired information there is about the thief on the cross, there sure are a lot of assumptions that are made. Those who deny the necessity of baptism and those who use the thief as a crutch to prove their position often assume he was not baptized; but the Bible does not say one way or another. It is certainly possible the thief could have been baptized by John (Matt. 3:5, 6), but we are not privy to that information.

For years the thief on the cross has been the front line of defense for those who believe baptism does not save, just as it was for Dr. Bjornstad in the debate. However, when we consider all that the Bible has to say on the subject, the argument falls apart. As New Testament Christians let us all be ready to give a defense (1 Pet. 3:15), the next time somebody asks, “What about the thief on the cross?”