Theif on the Cross

[Lizziebel]

Hopefully I did just mishear/mistake what was being said in the reading. What you’re suggesting does make a lot more sense. I’ll have to take a look at the missal again this week to check it out.

Thanks!

 

[steve_b]

Hopefully I did just mishear/mistake what was being said in the reading. What you’re suggesting does make a lot more sense. I’ll have to take a look at the missal again this week to check it out.

Thanks!

I checked this closer.

You were listening better than I was. I found what you were talking about. I must have tuned that part out. Mea culpa

Here was palm Sunday’s Gospel readings

according to Mark
Mk 14:1—15:47 or 15:1-39

the section we’re talking about (emphasis mine)

“They brought him to the place of Golgotha
— which is translated Place of the Skull —
They gave him wine drugged with myrrh,
but he did not take it.
Then they crucified him and divided his garments
by casting lots for them to see what each should take.
It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.
The inscription of the charge against him read,
“The King of the Jews.”
With him they crucified two revolutionaries,
one on his right and one on his left.
Those passing by reviled him,
shaking their heads and saying,
“Aha! You who would destroy the temple
and rebuild it in three days,
save yourself by coming down from the cross.”
Likewise the chief priests, with the scribes,
mocked him among themselves and said,
“He saved others; he cannot save himself.
Let the Christ, the King of Israel,
come down now from the cross
that we may see and believe.”
Those who were crucified with him also kept abusing him.”

or

They brought him to the place of Golgotha
—which is translated Place of the Skull—
They gave him wine drugged with myrrh,
but he did not take it.
Then they crucified him and divided his garments
by casting lots for them to see what each should take.
It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.
The inscription of the charge against him read,
“The King of the Jews.”
With him they crucified two revolutionaries,
one on his right and one on his left.
Those passing by reviled him,
shaking their heads and saying,
“Aha! You who would destroy the temple
and rebuild it in three days,
save yourself by coming down from the cross.”
Likewise the chief priests, with the scribes,
mocked him among themselves and said,
“He saved others; he cannot save himself.
Let the Christ, the King of Israel,
come down now from the cross
that we may see and believe.”
Those who were crucified with him also kept abusing him.

usccb.org/nab/readings/040509a.shtml

Matthew’s account wasn’t in this years reading schedule, but said the same as Mark

Mt 27:41
41In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42"He saved others," they said, "but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ " 44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Luke gives a different detail than Mt and Mk, by individually differentiating what the thieves said AND tells us that the one thief gives practically a catechism and gospel summation in just the few words he is recorded of speaking… And how Our Lord gave that one thief a phenominal promise… Luke’s account I seem to always remember, probably because of those particulars.

I think Your question points to an important issue. Luke details the “good” thief’s defense of Jesus against the other thief’s insults. But Mark and Matthew say both hurled insults at Jesus? It’s probably reasonable to say from the beginning of the crucifixion, and the end, there was a conversion and transformation of the one thief. Whatever transpired in those hours of intense pain and suffering, being crucifiued with Jesus, one thief converted. Not only converted, but rebuked the other thief for his insults of Jesus. He acknowledged his wrong doing, acknowledged Jesus as God, and asked Jesus for mercy. It’s all there.

Lk 23

38There was a written notice above him, which read:|sc THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom
43Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

 

[Deum_quaerens]

The example of the repentant thief on the Cross cannot be used in favour of Baptism of Desire, and against the necessity of Baptism of Water, quite simply because Baptism only became necessary from the promulgation of the Gospel onwards.

 

[mich2]

So, my first post here (and forgive if I didn’t use a good search function). However, my wife (who is a presbyterian) and I got into a “discussion” at dinner about the requirement for works plus faith. She cited the thief on the cross as evidence of one who had faith but no words but yet entered into heaven. Admittedly one or two glasses of wine into the evening, I couldn’t find a good argument other than that the baptism (or conversion?) was under exigent circumstances.

Are there any other thoughts from the faithful here that I am missing?

Thanks,
John

Welcome aboard, John.

My personal view is that Jesus’ death opened heaven’s door to Jews and Christians alike, and will eventually also be the lot of many more at the final Judgement. In my opinion, the thief who went into Paradise was a Jew, not a christian.

Notice that in John’s Gosple, we read : "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5), just before this, it reads Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jesus seems to mention a new birth “without water” which enables one to “perceive, or see” the Kingdom of God without actualy entering into it.In this I think of the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit as refered to by John the Baptist.
Paradise, in my opinion is not situated within the kingdom of God, and is the place for those righteous ones who received the covenant of circumcision.Therefore, the thief beside Jesus who repented did not become a christian on the cross, but was clearly a Jewish person who had repented, and was therefore able to go to Paradise. Notice that Jesus did not say to him “you will be with me in the Kingdom of God”.

It therefore would make sence of the words of Jesus concerning John the Baptist. “No one born of women is greater than him”…however, he adds “the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than He.” This was, in my opinion why John asked Jesus to baptize him instead of him baptizing Jesus…so that he could enter into the Kingdom of God. However, Jesus said to him that it was God’s will that he should be His precursor.

The Temple is an image of Heaven, so this highly suggests Heaven as being divided. The only person able to enter into the “Holy of Holies” was the High priest. This suggests that only Christians(body of Christ) can enter into the “Heaven of Heavens”, being what is called the Kingdom of God.

Andre

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

My thots:

1. Jesus could grant salvation to anyone he wanted to.
2. The baptism in effect at that time was in preparation for the future kingdom that would come when the Holy Spirit would descend on the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2).
3. All Israel was commanded to receive the preparatory baptism preached by John the Baptist and Jesus.
4. All Israel came to John (and later Jesus) to be baptized by him in the river Jordan; only the teachers of the law and scribes refused (Luke 7).
5. It is more likely than not that the thief WAS baptized as he was an Israelite.

PS - The baptism of desire came much later after the period of sacred scripture and was to accommodate the martyrs who were not baptized.

 

[JPShinn]

Sometimes I think a large part of the ‘faith’ v ‘works’ issue is that Catholics and non-Cs not infrequently have different meanings for the word ‘works’. Most Catholics, as you have done, would call the thief’s confession and rebuke of the taunters, and his request for mercy and forgiveness, ‘works’, whereas most non-Cs wouldn’t

Difficult to have a rational discussion about anything if you can’t agree on a definition of your core terms.

Thanks, all, for the fine and useful information. I had never considered that angle and appreciate the thoughts.

God bless,
John

 

[SimonArizona]

I will submit to you that the thief didn’t go directly to heaven. Jesus said the word “paradise.” Is that heaven?

When Jesus appeared to his disciples he said “Touch me not for I have *not yet *ascended to the Father.”

 

[neweyes]

Before Jesus died, all of the people were under the old covenant. Therefore, baptism was not yet required (See Acts 2:38)

Then why did Jesus feel He HAD to get baptized? And why would He ask the disciples to go into all nations and baptize believers?