This confession is not of sins which John the Baptist preached but is required of all when the New Testament came into force (Hebrews 9:17; Acts 8:36f).

THE SECOND CONFESSION

OF WHO JESUS IS

chart of confession by thief on the cross

Romans 10:10, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”

The first confession of who Jesus truly is was made by Peter in Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20. Simon Peter answered: 'You are the Messiah [the Christ], the Son of the living God.'”

A second reported true confession is made at the cross by an unlikely person: a thief.

This confession appears to be accepted by readers without contest. The question appears whether Jesus really said He was saving the thief on this day and/or ever.

Ages ago while I was studying with the Seventh Day Adventists, I was taught that man’s soul became unconscious when one dies. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man was denied as a factual story since “the dead know not anything” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). In the parable in Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of the poor man who consciously went to “Abraham’s Bosom.” Jesus, who would have known what really happens when one dies, told the story as if it were true. There is what the Jews called “Abraham’s Bosom.” The Adventists said that parables were not necessarily true occurences but made up stories to illustrate a point. Did Jesus just make up the existence of Abraham’s Bosom and a temporary place of punishment for the rich man or did He borrow it from the Jews’ extra Biblical sources who believed in such a place? It would have been the case if the soul is truly unconscious at death while awaiting the Judgment Day.

Luke 23:43 is another headache for the “unconscious at death” teachers. Jesus mentioned the reality of a place called Paradise. The problem is raised whether Jesus actually said that He and the believing thief on the cross were going immediately to this Paradise? Did Jesus say “I say unto you today (comma), you are going to be with me in Paradise”? Or, did He say, “I say unto you, (comma) today you are going to be with me in Paradise”? The point is made that listeners would decide where that comma goes. A speaker would not stop and say “comma.” Yet, the Greek writer did not use commas. The adverb “today” either modifies Jesus’ verb “say” or it modifies the verb “are going to be with me.” It is important for us where one puts the comma in order to interpret Jesus’ actual statement and promise of when they would be going there If one is going to be with Jesus in a Paradise that immediate day in which they both died, one is hard pressed to believe that the soul would have being unconscious at that death.

Searching on the internet, I discovered that there are conflicting articles online. On the one hand, a writer will argue that the “today” is something that Jesus uses with the rhetorical, “I say unto you.” The writer might argue that it was an introductory Hebrew idiomatic expression that speakers would use with an emphatic “I say unto you.” If so, it is a meaningless assertion and does not tell us when Jesus expected to be in Paradise. That would mean that Jesus only promised the thief a place in His Kingdom perhaps when He returned in the future. Hence, it was not to be that day of crucifixion. After all the thief had just requested that Jesus would remember him when He came in His Kingdom.

THE CONFESSION: The thief confessed that Jesus was indeed who He claimed to be: the actual King of the Kingdom. He believed that Jesus would be coming in His Kingdom. And he asked Jesus to remember him.

In my judgment an excellent article on the Jesus’ unique use of “today” on the day of His cross is online at https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/118-5-today-paradise.htm#top.

This writer shows us that the use of “today” within an introductory emphatic adverb is non existent both in the actual gospel accounts of Jesus using “I say unto you.” And the writer addresses the Hebrew Old Testament use of “today” and denies any such thing. It makes sense to me. Why would Jesus during a painful hanging on a cross rhetorically say “today” simply for eloquence to introduce His promise? Surely, all parties were aware of when Jesus was talking. His conclusion was that He was giving encouragement to a professed believer by asserting where his destiny was in just a few more final breaths.

1. “NEVER, in the whole of the New Testament did Jesus use the word “today” to qualify the time of speaking.” The argument by the “unconscious dead” teachers is that Jesus habitually so used the word “today” in His introductory “Amen” statements. But are the teachers that argue this being truthful? We can prove whether the adverb "today" should qualify the verb "I say", or the verb "you shall be" (Luke 23:43) by examining other similar statements of Jesus.

It should suffice to note just a few passages of how Jesus uses “day” in His sayings. Jesus said, "I say to you" (without an 'amen') 59 times and with “amen” (or “assuredly” in NKJV) 51 times.

    Mark 14:30 : "Verily I say unto thee, that 'this day ... thou shall deny me thrice.' "
    Luke 4:21 : "And He began to say unto them, that 'This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.' "
    Luke 5:26 : "Saying, 'We have seen strange things to-day.' "
    Luke 19:9 : "Jesus said unto him that, 'This day is salvation come to this house.' "
    Luke 22:34 : "And He said, 'I tell thee, Peter, in no wise shall a cock crow to-day before thou shall thrice deny that thou knowest Me.'"     Here the word "to-day" is connected with the verb "crow," because the context is obvious and requires it.

After perusing all 110 passages, the conclusion has to be made that Jesus NEVER used the words 'today' or 'this day' to qualify an introductory verb “I say.”

2. Another argument made is that the formula “I say unto thee this day” was that it was a well known Hebrew idiom used to emphasize solemnity of the occasion and the importance of the words to be made. But the above referenced article in my opinion also destroys this as an argument. Only the book of Deuteronomy is referenced by such a proponent and upon investigation, the references appealed to, are referring to specific commandments, statutes, and judgments and are emphasizing which commandments are referred to. “Not any other commandments but those I have spoken today.

CONCLUSION: The “annihilationist” contention that the comma is misplaced in Luke 23:43 in every available English translation on the face of the earth—is simply a product of theological bias against the Biblical truth that New Testament believers are immediately in conscious bliss when they die. i

Someone might say, but the thief was not baptized and to go to Paradise that day would be inconsistent with those being saved in the book of Acts. Interpreting the promise as of instant salvation contradicts the New Testament commands given in the book of Acts. Some would even apply it to their own case of refusal to obey the gospel. For example, they will say, “I am not going to be baptized. I’m going to be saved like the thief on the cross.”

But to even suggest this shows that such a conclusion is contrary to understanding the time of the change of covenants (Hebrews 9:15f). Testaments are of force after men are dead. Jesus had not died yet. Plus, this reminds us of Jesus forgiving sins throughout His ministry along with miraculous healings. This ministry of spontaneous but purposeful forgiving did not end until His death (and consequent resurrection).

Peter confessed who Jesus is but later denied Him. The thief had been condemned to the cross along side Jesus but he confessed who Jesus is and was blessed with the loving promise by Jesus of entrance within Paradise within only a few hours.


        -         GAYLON WEST :::: edited by Janie Ward and Mary West

i https://faithsaves.net/luke-2343-comma/

Bible Study Lessons