Objections To Baptism: The Thief On The Cross

Article by:

Blake Hudson

Introduction

One of the most common arguments against the necessity of baptism is the case of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:32-43). The argument against baptism usually goes something like this:

The thief was not baptized
He only believed in Jesus
He was given forgiveness of sins and eternal life
Therefore, baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins

We’ll make a few remarks regarding the argument above before going more in depth:

We know nothing about the history of the thief other than the fact that he was a robber. To say that he was or was not baptized in John’s baptism is an assumption, but for the sake of argument let’s concede that it appears unlikely that he was previously baptized.
We need to add that he also repented of his sins and made a confession of Jesus’ lordship (he had at least a partial understanding of Jesus’ lordship, see Luke 23:42). So in reality we have at least belief, repentance, and confession.
That he was given forgiveness of sins and eternal life are not in question
Baptism may or may not have been necessary for the thief on the cross, but does it follow that baptism is not necessary for us? As we will see below, it does not.

Time is of the Essence

There is a fundamental difference between the time before Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension and the time after those events. In the old dispensation God’s people were required to make frequent animal sacrifices, in the current dispensation we look back to the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. In this dispensation we are required to believe in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus and to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit while those who lived and died before the ascension did not have those requirements. Many other examples are available.

The question must be asked: do we live in the same dispensation as the thief on the cross? The answer is no. He died before the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, while we are living after those events. What was required of the thief on the cross is not necessarily what is required of us and vice versa. In fact, the argument could equally be made that since the thief did not believe in the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, then we are not required to believe those facts either. Any Christian would agree that this last argument does not hold, so why would we think that we can use the same form of argument against baptism? Instead of looking for examples of people being saved prior to Jesus’ ascension we must look for examples and teachings from after the ascension to find what is required of us.

An Exceptional Circumstance

The case of the thief on the cross is, by any analysis, a unique event. For one thing, the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus are events that create such a fundamental change in world history and our relationship with God that we can consider the time before and the time after those events as separate periods in redemptive history (i.e. dispensations). But when we look at the thief on the cross we cannot say “before” or “after”, rather we have to say “in progress”.

So we live in the time after the ascension, while the thief lived in the very unique period of time where Jesus’ earthly ministry and death (but not resurrection since the thief died before that time) were in progress. Not only does the thief live in a unique time period, he is one of only two people who have ever been in the situation of dying on a cross alongside of Jesus.

We Are Not on a Cross Next To Jesus

All Christians can agree that sins are forgiven only through the atoning blood of Jesus and that Jesus can grant forgiveness of sins to whomever he wants using whatever method or conditions he wants. When he was being crucified he chose to extend forgiveness of sins to the thief after the thief made his confession. But we are not thieves on crosses next to Jesus. Since we are not thieves on crosses next to Jesus, we should not look to that exceptional circumstance to define our responsibilities while we ignore what is clearly prescribed to those living in our own period of redemptive history – namely the necessity of baptism as the point at which we receive forgiveness of sins.

Conclusion

The thief on the cross is an exceptional event that takes place in a different period of redemptive history than the one in which we live. The thief is never used as an example of how we, living after the ascension of Jesus, are to become his disciples. So what has been commanded of us? Summarizing the teachings of the New Testament, we are told that we must believe in Jesus, repent of our sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and live faithfully to God. It would be foolish to allow exceptional circumstances from a different dispensation to overrule clear teachings directed at us regarding baptism (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:1-4; Galatians 3:26-27; 1 Peter 3:21).