One of the subjects that sometimes comes up in the context of Good Friday is the thief on the cross. Advocates of baptismal regeneration and other forms of justification through works often dismiss the thief as a soteriological exception to the rule.
There aren't any Biblical examples of a person being justified at the time of baptism. But there are many examples of people being justified without having ever been baptized or at the time of prebaptismal faith. See my post here on the double healing passages, for example. See here on the evidence from Acts. Here's a post arguing that Cornelius in Acts 10, like the thief on the cross, is normal rather than an exception. And here's a discussion of how the Galatians were justified the same way Cornelius was. There are many other such posts in our archives, including ones that address other passages, not just the ones mentioned above. If the thief on the cross is an exception to the rule, why is his scenario repeated so often, before his time and afterward, by such a large number and variety of individuals and across such a large number and variety of contexts?
There's further evidence for the normativity of the thief in the language and themes of the passage. The more the account about the thief resembles the other relevant passages, the more difficult it is to dismiss it as exceptional. You could still dismiss the thief as an exception to the rule, despite how similar he is to the rule, but what we should be concerned about is the best explanation of the passage, not just a possible explanation.
Like others in the gospels, such as in the double healing passages cited above, the thief initiates an exchange with Jesus that acknowledges him as a superior (e.g., the behavior of the woman in Luke 7:37-38, "Master" in 17:13, "God" in 18:13, "Lord" in 19:8, the thief's comments in 23:41-42) and seeks something from him. And the thief asks for something soteriological in particular, as some of the others who approached Jesus did. Shortly before the account about the thief, Luke narrates Jesus' comments about the tax collector in 18:9-14 and an interaction with Zaccheus in 19:1-10. Both passages are soteriological (18:14, 19:9), like the passage about the thief.
The "today" in "today you shall be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43) should sound familiar. Jesus had likewise referred to "today" in response to Zaccheus (19:9), and the reference to how the tax collector in the previous chapter "went to his house justified" is likewise meant to highlight the immediacy of his justification. And Jesus tells others that their faith has already saved them (7:50, 17:19). There's a consistent theme of immediacy. I'm focused on Luke's gospel, since that's where the thief account is found, but keep in mind that there are similar passages in the other gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament, as discussed in the double healing post linked earlier.
Jesus' emphasis on immediacy, as reflected in his use of the word "today" in the thief passage and elsewhere, is found in other early Christian sources as well. As I've discussed in another post, Paul addresses the theme of immediacy with the same sort of appeal to the current day that we see in Luke's gospel in 2 Corinthians 6:2 ("the day"), and he even replaces "the day" with "now" to put further emphasis on the immediacy of justification. In Romans 10:8-10, he refers to the immediacy of our access to the means of receiving justification (faith in the heart). Both the chronological immediacy of 2 Corinthians 6 (also referred to by Jesus) and the immediacy of access referred to in Romans 10 make the most sense under justification through faith alone. Adding baptism or any other work (or sacrament or whatever else you want to call it) undermines the immediacy Jesus and Paul appealed to.
The account of the thief on the cross provides further evidence for the immediacy of justification, as highlighted by the "today" language, has other characteristics found in other passages in which justification through faith alone occurs, and gives us another example of somebody justified apart from baptism and other works. There are multiple ways in which the thief account fits into a larger pattern that we see elsewhere in the gospels, Acts, and other places in the New Testament. The thief isn't an exception to the rule. He's another illustration of the rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment