In nearly every discussion I engage in with non-members of the New Testament church of Christ, in which I point out the clear teaching, and repeated examples of baptism being the consummating act of one's obedience of the gospel, an almost invariable objection is raised that baptism cannot be an essential part of ones obedience because of the presumed idea that the thief on the cross was not baptized. One inadvertent consequence of this argument is that it actually amplifies the fact that the necessity of baptism was established from the very beginning of Christ's church and practiced without fail in cases of conversion, for if the Bible was silent as to the nature and application of this commandment, there would be no need to search for an excuse to not do it, i.e., satan's ministers wouldn't have to expend so much effort attempting to eisegete an exemption to this commandment.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves," (Mt.7:15).
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many," (Mt.24:11).
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:" (2 Pet. 2:1-3).
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works," (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
As you can readily see, the inspired scriptures abound with warnings of deceivers who lurk beneath the garb of charisma and eloquence, many of which who only seek wealth in the tax-free business of religion. Countless souls have been lost due to the clever tactics of a well articulated lie. Myriads of people's thought processes are muddled beyond the point of logic, reason and common sense, due to the charm of an infectious smile and an expensive suit. People assume they can be saved without baptism because they assume the thief was not baptized. If one is willing to stake the eternal destiny of his soul on the opinion that the thief was saved without baptism, they should at the very least be able to prove that he was not baptized.
The scriptures reveal a contrast between those who humbly submitted to the will of God, and those who avoided baptism in the days of Jesus' and John's preaching the gospel of the kingdom, however, I haven't found the slightest inclination of anyone in the 1st century who rejected the necessity of baptism, based on the contention that the thief was not baptized.
"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him," (Lk.7:29-30).
These words, being penned sometime after the cross, establish the fact that rejecting baptism was the equivalent of rejecting the will of God. Could it be then, that this objection was not raised in the apostolic era because they would have quickly realized the fallacy of such an argument? As the old saying goes, "Necessity is the mother of invention;" this thief would never have attracted so much modern day attention had it not been for the need of denominational preachers to dodge what the Bible plainly says. The burden of proof therefore is owned by those who would have us believe that baptism is not necessary for one's salvation based on the assumption that this thief was saved without baptism, so, can this claim be substantiated by the scriptures?
"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins," (Mt. 3:5-6).
"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins," (Mk. 1:4-5).
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized," (Jn. 3:22-23).
"When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee," (Jn. 4:1-3).
The scriptures show us plainly that all the regions of Jordan and Judaea were baptized of John, and that Jesus and His 12 disciples made and baptized more than John, therefore, can anyone even remotely prove that this thief was not in these numbers?? It is a very illogical, desperate and perilous proposition to assume salvation without baptism, based on a theory woefully lacking in credibility! I suggest that the scriptures come much nearer to proving that this thief was indeed baptized, than supporting the conjecture that he wasn't!
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," (Lk.23:42).
This statement of the thief would indicate that he may have had a clearer understanding of the nature of the kingdom than many of his peers, and of particular note is that he addressed Jesus as "Lord" which would suggest that he was a Jew and familiar with Jesus of Nazareth. Though it is probable that he was a cohort to Barabbas, who also was most likely a Jew, for why would they have a custom of releasing a Gentile criminal at Passover, all of this is speculation because it isn't directly specified in the Bible, therefore, we must consider the aspects which are incontrovertible.
If in reality the thief was saved without being baptized, does that mean that we today can be saved without being baptized?
"But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth," (Heb.9:11-17).
The actions of the thief on the cross are irrelevant to our salvation today because he died before Christ's Will became binding. It is universal and common knowledge that a "Last Will & Testament" can be altered, amended, completely reconstructed or discarded while the Grantor is still alive, and even though a Will is, "a legal document declaring a person's wishes regarding the disposal of their property..." there is that all-important stipulation of, "...when they die," therefore, while the Testator is still alive, he has the ability and authority to make any alterations he deems necessary. During the ministry of Jesus, He was proclaiming His New Testament Will. We must realize that the sins of man are not only against God, but also recorded in the mind of God, therefore, since Jesus was (and is) God, He had the authority to bind or loose, and He had the authority to forgive sins, and He did so on a number of occasions.
"And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace," (Lk.7:44-50).
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more," (Jn.8:3-11).
"And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," (Lk.19:8-10).
One might ask why, when we see Jesus forgiving sins in these accounts without commanding them to be baptized, can't we today also be saved without baptism? The reason is because baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins was not binding when these things took place because the Testator of the New Will had not yet died. Another very important detail which goes unnoticed by most is unmistakable in that Jesus said of Zacchaeus, "forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham." The people to whom Jesus forgave sins were not alien sinners, i.e., Gentiles, they were sons and daughters of Abraham, erring children of God's people, of whom Jesus said He came to seek and to save the lost.
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" (Eph.2:11-12).
It is a serious mistake of fortuitous consequence to disregard the contextual difference between the alien sinner and an erring child of God. This is the common mistake made regarding the Pharisee and the publican who went up into the temple at the hour of prayer. Just like Zacchaeus-the-publican was a "son of Abraham" (a Jew), so was this publican of Luke 18, but Jesus' statement, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified" (Lk.18:14) in no way supports the sinner's prayer, nor salvation without baptism, for this publican was not an alien sinner, but rather, as any erring child of God always had the privilege of prayer for the forgiveness of sin, so it was with this publican who prayed in the temple for God's mercy.
"And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions," (Mk.10:17-22).
I can't help but wonder why no one has ever appealed to this incident to insist that baptism is not necessary for salvation! Why don't preachers today tell their audiences that baptism isn't necessary, just sell all your possessions and give it to the poor? I dare say that many sumptuously-dressed 'preachers' would go out of business if that were indeed the requirement to gain eternal life!
"And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion," (Mk.2:3-12).
We see that this man was not told to be baptized, nor does the text reveal that he was told to believe on Christ, so it is imperative that we realize Jesus' authority on Earth to forgive sins, and He could freely do this without violating the terms of His Will, for a testament is of force after men are dead. Arguing that we today need not be baptized for the remission of sins, because the thief, the palsied man, Zacchaeus, the adulterous woman, nor the rich young ruler were required to be baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins, is equivalent to arguing that we today don't need to pay income tax because good moral and upstanding men such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't pay any income taxes. It is no strain on the mind to readily comprehend that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln lived and died before any income tax law was enacted, yet, this is the identical reasoning from those who desire to evade the necessity of baptism and argue that we today can be saved without baptism because the thief on the cross was not baptized in the name of Christ. One might as well argue that baptism isn't necessary because Abraham, nor Moses were baptized in the name of Christ!
Christ came to fulfil the Old Testament law:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt.5:17-18).
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it," (Lk.16:16).
"In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away;" (Heb.8:13 NKJV).
"He afterward said, "See, I have come to do your will." He is taking away the first to let the second take its place," (Heb.10:9 WNT).
After Christ died, His Will became binding, and no man has the authority to alter the terms of His Testament. After Christ arose from the dead, He commissioned His ambassadors, and commanded them: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Mt.28:19-20). Some 10 days later, Peter told the multitudes on the day of Pentecost to, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," (Acts 2:38).
Christ's Will has now been probated and its terms and conditions cannot be changed.