Perhaps the text that is treated
like a “rag doll” by many defenders of various “faith alone” theologies is that
of Luke 23:43, a record of Christ’s words to the good thief:
And
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in
paradise.
For many Protestants, this “proves”
that salvation is procured through faith alone, and also serves as a
refutation of any salvific importance to baptism, among other things, such as
the Latter-day Saint belief in salvation for the dead. However, as with many
texts cited by proponents of this theology, this is eisegetical, the popularity
of this text being used in such a manner notwithstanding.
Firstly, one should be noted that
God allows for exceptions to the rule, if the instance necessitates such. For instance,
David, after journeying a distance and in need of food, was allowed to partake
of the shewbread, notwithstanding the fact that the priests in the temple were
allowed to eat it (1 Sam 21:6; cf. Lev 24:5, 9; Matt 12:1-12).
Moreover, one should note that the
malefactor’s actions of calling up his counterpart for his sinful actions and
their just condemnation (Luke 23:40-41) is a detail not included in Mark and
Matthew; furthermore, in Mark and Matthew, the good thief was not always good
to Jesus. In Matt 27:44 (paralleled in Mark 15:32), we read:
The
thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
Here, both thieves mocked and
reviled Jesus. If one wishes to use, as those who use this passage tend to
do due to a priori assumptions of inerrancy, a pan-canonical
approach to the Bible, one must argue that the good thief repented; an action that some
who use this verse tend to relegate as “optional” or even unnecessary to one’s
salvation (the “no-Lordship salvation” proponents). This should be coupled with
his asking the other thief if he fears God (Luke 23:40), evidencing that the
good thief had an acute and personal fear of God in order to demand it from the
other thief.
Additionally, many who use this
verse beg the question, and assume, without evidence one way or another, that
this penitent thief did not know about Jesus and was not baptised prior to his
being arrested and repentance. Indeed, there are hints that he was acquainted
with Jesus prior to this event, such as his recognition that Jesus did no wrong
and knew of his message of the kingdom of God (vv.41-42), showing that he had
familiarity with Jesus before being arrested and crucified. There is no
recorded conversation about the kingdom of God recorded in this pericope, and
Jesus was virtually silent the whole time. So, in spite of having his hands
“tied behind his back” (in this case, very literally), the thief initiates the
process by recognising the justice served to him for his crimes, his
repentance, and then asks Jesus to be with him in the kingdom of God. Jesus
then blesses the thief with the promise that he will be with him in “paradise”
in light of his obedience. This is hardly Sola Fide.
Furthermore, another question that
is begged is the equation of “paradise” with “heaven.” This is not the case
according to the New Testament, as we know Jesus, when he died, did not go to
heaven. In John 20:17, after revealing himself to Mary Magdelene the day he was
resurrected, he read that:
Jesus
saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to
my brethren, and day unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and
to my God, and your God.
Where Jesus spent the three days
between his death and triumphant resurrection was the “spirit world,” as seen
in 1 Pet 3:18-20 (cf. D&C 138):
For
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime
were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of
Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is eight, souls were
saved by water.
There is nothing in this incident in
the Gospel of Luke that “proves” any faith alone theology nor does it
“disprove” the salvific importance of baptism or the performance of ordinances
for the dead who never heard the gospel.
This will allow for a nice bridge
into the topic of the next blog post or two, discussing into baptism and New
Testament teachings.
