The thief on the cross was not an exception

As I've been perusing Christian social media as of late, I have noticed a concerning - and utterly erroneous - claim making its way from one influencer account to another.

The erroneous claim goes something like this:

So in this short article, I want to challenge this claim. I state the exact opposite; that is, the thief on the cross was never an exception, he was the norm.

The crucifixion

As a reminder, our Lord was crucified at Golgatha, a place which in Aramaic means The Place of a Skull, and he was specifically crucified next to two robbers, one on his right and the other on his left. Interestingly, both Matthew and Mark record that both of these criminals partook in mocking Jesus alongside the crowd of elders, scribes, and Pharisees.

The gospel of John likewise mentions the two robbers, though it speaks nothing of their behavior during their crucifixions:

From what we read in Matthew and Mark, it would seem that Jesus was surrounded by enemies on both sides during his excruciating death. That is, until we get to the incredibly unique story retold in the gospel of Luke.

Luke's gospel

Luke's gospel is, in my opinion, quite unique. When I read his gospel, I notice that he includes incredibly specific details about events that transpired, he presents deep eyewitness testimony that he gathered, and he narrates events from a spiritual perspective that reminds me quite a bit of how Paul would speak. As a mathematician and software engineer, I love Luke's meticulous attention to detail.

In his gospel, he likewise records that Jesus was crucified next to two criminals, with one on his right side and the other on his left:

Here's where things get interesting, though. Like Matthew and Mark, Luke records that Jesus was berrated by at least one of these criminals, and even more, we have actual dialoge from the abuser:

You might expect that God would defend himself here; perhaps Jesus would silence him, rebuke him, or chastise him in some way for how he was speaking to the Son of the Living God. But no, instead of Jesus retaliating against this first thief, we have an interjection from, of all people, the second thief! He responds directly to the first thief from verse 39, as Luke's gospel records:

In a stunning, beautiful portrayal, Jesus, in the middle of his excruciating death, finds himself next to a new believer. Right there, as he is dying on the cross, he still persevered through his suffering just to bring this lowly thief into repentance to produce belief.

Change of heart

You might be wondering, though: didn't both Matthew and Mark record that the thieves (plural) were reviling and insulting Jesus? Don't those gospels record that both criminals acted in hostility towards the Son of God? Why, or rather how, then, does Luke's account differ from theirs?

I think the answer is really quite simple, and it shouldn't be surprising since Jesus preached repentance all throughout the gospel of Luke:

The thief on the cross changed his mind; quite literally, he repented.

Somehow, some way, at some point while hanging next to the Lord of Glory on his cross, his heart gave way, and he surrended to the Lord of lords. The thief on the cross believed in his heart that Jesus was who he had been saying all this time that he was, and he confessed with his mouth what he believed in his heart.

Belief and confession

Does that phrase sound familiar, like you've read it somewhere before? Something about the words "belief" and "confession" showing up together? I would hope so because because I phrased it that way on purpose. I am making an explicit reference to Paul's own words in the book of Romans. Recall that the beloved apostle Paul wrote:

I actually have a small theory that the story of this thief on the cross might have been exactly where Paul got his idea about belief and confession appearing together as an expression of "believing loyalty" as Dr. Michael Heiser would call it. It likewise confirms Jesus' own words elsewhere in Luke's gospel, where Jesus is recorded to have said:

Scripture looks at this all together in unison: what you believe in your heart, spills out of your mouth, and manifests itself through your works.

Faith

Now I have a few questions for you: did the thief on the cross see heaven's gates opened? Did he see Jesus ascend into his kingdom? Did he see the Holy Spirit descend like a dove? Did he get baptized before dying? Did he partake in the Last Supper? Did he have time to get any sort of last affairs in order before his death?

No, Scripture records no details like this whatsoever about this thief on the cross; we have only our small handful of verses to go off of and nothing more. What we know is that he believed in who Christ was and he confessed his believing loyalty before his death.

Why would the thief do all of this, then, especially in the middle of a torturous crucifixion?

The answer to this question is the answer to this entire article. The answer to how people were saved all the way back to Abraham in the Old Testament. The answer that Hebrews 11 says has always been the answer from day one on how salvation is attained.

The answer is this: faith.

Recall once more the words of Paul:

It was faith. It has always been faith. The thief on the cross expressed his faith because it welled up from the belief in his heart - because he changed his mind, he repented - and spilled out of his mouth as an act of confession.

Functionally confessional

And regarding works, don't you know that good works are confessional by nature? Don't you know that good works are intended to act as examples of confession amongst your fellow man?

See for yourself what the Scriptures say:

Look at how else Jesus addresses salvation; he wants you to confess him before your fellow man, just look at what he says in Scripture:

Now, if you're from an apostolic tradition like Roman Catholicism or some flavor of Orthodoxy, you might have some sharp disagreement welling up inside of you because I have not mentioned the sacraments such as baptism or the Lord's Supper. And this might very well be where you disagree with me in regards to the thief on the cross being an exception rather than the norm; you might argue against me that the thief did not have the opportunity to partake in the sacraments, so God gave him a free pass given his exceptional circumstances. However, we should not consider ourselves so lucky, or blessed, or within such forgiving circumstances as he was.

So let's talk for a moment about the sacraments. Why do we do them in the first place?

My answer would have gotten me burned at the stake about a thousand years ago, but I'm going to posit the following statement regardless: we partake in the sacraments not because they themselves are saving but instead because they are functionally confessional.

Communion is confessional

Yes, that's right: I firmly believe the primary purpose of Communion is to operate as a mechanism of confession. What exactly is the confession of, then? Our faith in the Son of God and what he did. Remember, Hebrews 11 said it has always been about faith; we had Old Testament champions of the faith long, long before the Lord's Supper ever came around.

Let's see what the apostle Paul says about Communion in his first letter to the church at Corinth. As is typical with Paul's letters, he was chastising the church for its wayward behavior, especially in regards to how they were treating the Lord's Supper. He firmly reminded them of the following:

Let's look at the Greek; the word that is translated to "proclaim" in English is the Greek verb καταγγέλλω. Analyzing καταγγέλλω in the Logos Bible software, the word means to announce, to make known openly and with wide distribution, to be or become known openly and with wide distribution.

Don't you see what Paul is intending here? The Eucharist is about proclaiming, publicly, loudly, unashamedly, and at whatever cost, that you have thrown your believing loyalty with Christ.

Let's fill in these definitions with the verse:

Baptism is confessional

Stepping on yet more toes here, I also believe from what I see in Scripture that Peter likens this same idea to baptism as being functionally confessional. Let's see what Peter said in his first epistle:

Do you see what Peter did here? It's a borrowing from what Paul said in Romans as I referenced earlier:

Peter uses this phrasing because he is likening baptism to an act of confession with your mouth. And where does confession come from? Remember our Scripture reference from earlier:

Again, let's look at the Greek, specifically at the English word "appeal"; the Greek word here is the noun ἐπερώτημα which according to Logos means a pledge, a binding commitment to do or give or refrain from something. Once again, I appeal to the incredibly-wise Dr. Heiser here: it's an expression of believing loyalty.

It's the same idea, over and over and over. There's nothing metaphysically transformative or transcendent about the bread, the wine, or the baptismal water. It's about making known openly and with wide distribution your believing loyalty in the Christ.

It always well up from the belief in your heart.

Regeneration of the Holy Spirit

By the way, do you see why we have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit? If our natural hearts are always inclined to evil which naturally produce evil works, then we need a new heart, a new spirit inside of us, by which to naturally produce good works of confession. Furthermore, the Mosaic Law requires we do this unendingly and perfectly or else we are cursed (which means to be damned), so without supernatural intervention directly from God (as a result of his favor and mercy) to regenerate us directly in our innermost spirit, we will never attain eternal life.

Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and any other confessional action is useless if we don't believe from a regenerated spirit in the first place that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and was resurrected from the dead.

Justification vs. profits

Don't you see that this is the profits of good works, then? They function as acts of confession with the intended effect to bring as many people into the kingdom of God as possible.

Just look at Paul and how jealously he yearns for the early churches; go read 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. If you pay close attention, you will notice that he speaks about these churches as the profits of his works.

Notice what Paul isn't saying: he doesn't speak about how charitable he is, how forgiving he is, how humble he is (except when necessary to contrast his behavior against arrogant false apostles), or how he is such a good and wonderful person who is meritoriously earning his eternal life from God. No, it was Paul himself who emphasized over and over, in the strongest possible terms, that we are not justified before God by works of the Law:

And if you want the words of Jesus himself:

No, instead, he looks at these believers in the early churches as the profits of his good works. He traveled to them, confessed Christ to them through the gospel, taught them, and left to go elsewhere and do the same.

I think Paul is looking at these believers as his talents by which he wants to multiply his master's initial deposit.

The thief believed and confessed

Considering all of these points, then, here is my summary of the thief on the cross.

He did exactly what Christ wanted him to do: he confessed his belief.

Do you see, then, that he was not an exception? He did the same thing that you do when you partake in a sacrament like Communion or baptism: you are making known openly and with wide distribution your belief in the Son of God.

Oh, and of course, the final question to ask is this: was this actually enough for Jesus?

Yes, it sure was. Look at what Theos Christos said to the thief in return:

Repent and believe, image bearer, and go confess it to other image bearers so that they can repent and believe, too. I want to see you all in paradise.