Why the Thief on the Cross Doesn’t Prove What You Think
Part 6: Common Sense Questions A "Church of Christ Preacher" Cannot Clearly Answer
(This is part of a series where I am answering questions from the tract “Common Sense Questions A "Church of Christ Preacher" Cannot Clearly Answer”. You can find previous posts here.)
The Thief on the Cross: The Favorite Objection to Baptism
It’s nearly impossible to have a discussion about baptism without someone bringing up the thief on the cross.
The objection usually goes like this: “You say baptism is required for salvation, but the thief on the cross was saved and he wasn’t baptized. That proves baptism isn’t necessary.”
At first glance, it seems like a silver bullet. But once we really look into it, the argument is built on layers of assumptions and selective reasoning.
Let’s take a closer look.
Why Always the Thief?
It’s curious that when people try to disprove baptism, they always reach for the thief on the cross. Out of all the people Jesus interacted with in the New Testament—why this man?
Why not the rich young ruler?
He wasn’t told to be baptized either. But he was told to sell everything and follow Jesus. (Matthew 19:21)
Why not the woman caught in adultery?
Jesus told her, “Go and sin no more.” (John 8:11)
Still not a word about baptism, yet she’s never the go-to example.
Why not the woman at the well?
She was told about her fornication and adultery with five husbands (John 4), but baptism wasn’t mentioned explicitly.
No one ever says - Be saved like the rich young ruler. Be saved like the woman caught in adultery. Be saved like the woman at the well.
Why is it always the thief?
I’ll tell you why: Because in every other case, Jesus explicitly required something more than belief. Repentance. Change. Obedience. Action.
The rich young ruler needed to follow commands and sell all his stuff. The woman caught in adultery needed to sin no more. The woman at the well needed to give up adultery with her “five husbands.”
So, people skip those examples and cherry-pick the one person they think got in on a loophole.
What Do We Actually Know About the Thief?
Let’s take a sober look at the facts. The thief is mentioned in all four gospels. But when you filter out repeated or general references, you end up with only 8 unique verses that give us any details about him (see Luke 23:32–43 and parallels).
From those 8 verses, can you tell me:
His name?
What he stole?
Where he was from?
Whether he was married?
If he was a father?
Whether he was Jewish or Gentile?
No. We know almost nothing about this man.
Yet people claim with 100% certainty:
“He was not baptized.”
Really? Based on 8 verses? About a man whose background is a total mystery?
That’s not logic. That’s assumption. And it’s a shaky foundation for doctrine.
Could the Thief Have Known Jesus Before the Cross?
Let’s look at what the thief did say:
“This man has done nothing wrong.”
“Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” (Luke 23:41–42)
How could he know Jesus was innocent? You don’t just say that about someone you met hours ago while dying on a cross. You don’t defend a stranger under arrest unless you already know something about them.
He calls Jesus “Lord.”
He speaks of Jesus’ Kingdom—while Jesus is bleeding to death beside him. Let that sink in.
Even Jesus’ own disciples didn’t fully understand the “Kingdom” after the cross (Acts 1:6). That is a complex topic, and yet you want me to believe the thief understood that a dying Jesus was going to have a Kingdom without any prior teaching or understanding?
This suggests prior knowledge. Maybe he heard Jesus preach. Maybe he saw the miracles. Maybe he had been one of the multitudes baptized by John (Luke 3:7) or even by Jesus’ disciples (John 4:1-2).
We don’t know for certain. But we definitely can’t say he wasn’t baptized.
So Was He Baptized?
The truth is: we don’t know.
But given that:
John baptized multitudes from all over Judea and Jerusalem (Matthew 3:5-6),
Jesus’ disciples baptized even more (John 4:1-2),
The thief knew about Jesus' innocence, Lordship, and Kingdom...
…it’s possible he had prior exposure. And it’s plausible he had been baptized.
So let’s be clear: The argument that “the thief on the cross was not baptized” is not based on fact—it’s based on assumption.
But Let’s Go Deeper: Did He Even Need to Be Baptized?
Even if we grant, for argument’s sake, that the thief was not baptized, does that disprove baptism for us today?
Absolutely not. Why?
Because the thief lived—and died—before the New Covenant was in effect.
Hebrews 9:16-17 makes it clear:
“For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead…”
The New Covenant—Christianity as we know it—did not begin until after Jesus died and rose again.
That’s why the instructions Jesus gave after His resurrection are so crucial:
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16)
“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” (Matthew 28:19)
And on Pentecost, Peter preached: “Repent and be baptized… for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38)
These are the marching orders under the New Covenant—the covenant we live under today.
How was the Thief saved?
The reality is that while Jesus was on Earth he had the authority to forgive sins. “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6).
That is exactly what Jesus did. He forgave the sins of the thief, the woman caught in adultery (John 8:11), and the paralyzed man (Matthew 9:6).
Jesus is no longer on earth today. Therefore, he does not forgive sins like this anymore. Jesus forgives sins today when someone is baptized in His name for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:28, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21).
Conclusion: The Wrong Example
The thief on the cross is not your example. He lived before the gospel was fully revealed, before the church was established, before Jesus arose from the dead, and before baptism into Christ was even available.
Trying to be saved like the thief today is like trying to be saved like Abraham or Moses. They weren’t baptized into Christ either—but they also didn’t live under the New Covenant.
The thief on the cross does not disprove baptism because:
We cannot prove the thief was not baptized
The thief lived under the Old Testament
Baptism for the forgiveness of sins was not preached until after Jesus was resurrected in Mark 16:16 and officially in Acts 2:38.
Jesus had the authority to directly forgive sins while on Earth, which is what Jesus did when talking to the thief.
Please no longer use the thief as an excuse to not be baptized.
We follow what Jesus commanded after His resurrection.
And He said:
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16)
It seems so simple, and yet people want to complicate God’s perfect plan.
The Bible says to be baptized. Why not just do it?