On a recent broadcast, Johnny Robertson was discussing the thief on the cross. Lee, a regular poster here, wrote about the subject. He says:
“A viewer called Johnny last night, he was telling him what a good job he was doing. One of his last requests was to have Johnny comment on the thief on the cross, to which he stated that the thief was under the Old Testament.
I couldn’t wait to call, but was unable to get on air as it was at the end of the show. I did however speak to him off air.I asked him about his statement and he agreed that I heard him correctly. I then asked if it was more than likely that the thief died after Jesus, he said it was possible.
I wanted to know how the thief was under a different plan of salvation than I was if we both lived after Christ’s death. He said he didnt see the contradiction. If that’s not one than somebody help me.”
Hey, Lee. Good question. Here’s my take – and others (including Johnny) should feel free to give their thoughts:
The thief was NOT under the Old Testament, but he wasn’t playing by the same rules as we are, either. Why? Because he died during the ministry of Jesus. If Jesus saved him (“Today you’ll be with me in paradise”), then Jesus saved him. It’s as simple as that. If you are the CEO of a company, you get to decide who is hired into your company and who is not. In the same way, Jesus had (and has) the power to save – which he did.
Now, I’ve heard Norm Fields make the claim on his broadcast that the thief was already saved – that the thief was already a follower of Jesus when he died, and that’s how Jesus was able to save him (he’s been baptized already?). I debunked that theory pretty quickly on this blog. You can look it up, or I can give my argument against that if someone would like.
Anyway, that’s my thought. Anyone else? Johnny?
Sola Dei Gloria,