There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left… Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:32-33, 39-43, NKJV)
The second man
has come to be known as the “good thief” or the “penitent thief,” because his
words indicate repentance. His reference
to fear of God evinces a reverent attitude.
His acknowledgement that, in being put to death, he is receiving his
just deserts shows that he ultimately put righteousness above the goods of this
life. His plea to Christ indicates faith
that Jesus was who he claimed to be, and could secure for him an eternal reward.
The first
man has come to be known as the “impenitent thief,” because his words indicate
the opposite of repentance. He is not
reverent, but mocking. He shows no
concern about whether his punishment is deserved and ought to be accepted, but
worries only about saving his life. He
doubts and perhaps dismisses altogether the idea that Jesus really is the Christ,
and evinces no hope for the hereafter.
The penitent
thief was saved, and it stands to reason that the impenitent thief was
damned. Indeed, in his treatment of the
significance of the two thieves, Thomas Aquinas writes:
As Pope Leo observes (Serm.
iv de Passione): “Two thieves
were crucified, one on His right hand and one on His left, to set forth by the
very appearance of the gibbet that separation of all men which shall be made in
His hour of judgment.” And Augustine on
John 7:36: “The very cross, if thou mark it well, was a judgment-seat: for the
judge being set in the midst, the one who believed was delivered, the other who
mocked Him was condemned. Already He has
signified what He shall do to the quick and the dead; some He will set on His right,
others on His left hand.” (Summa
Theologiae III.46.11)
We are used
to hearing, in the story of the good thief, reassurance that salvation is
possible even for the worst of us, and even until the point of death. And it is indeed that. We are perhaps less used to thinking of the
story of the two thieves as also a warning about damnation. But that is how saints Leo, Augustine, and
Thomas understood it.
Now, Christ
explicitly promises Paradise to the one thief, but we are not told whether he
said anything to the other. Is it possible
that the apparently impenitent thief may also have repented before death? Interestingly, Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 speak
of both thieves reviling Jesus, whereas Luke has one of them reviling him and
the other rebuking the first. Commenting
on this fact, St. Ambrose suggests that “perhaps this other at first reviled,
but was suddenly converted” (as quoted in
Aquinas’s Catena Aurea). But Ambrose does not suggest that the bad
thief too may have repented, and if anything the scriptural evidence implies
the opposite. Judging just from Matthew
and Mark, you’d think neither of them repented.
If Luke is essentially telling us that reviling Christ was not in fact
the end of the story in the case of one of the thieves, it would be bizarre if
he didn’t also mention that it was not the end of the story in the case of the
other one.
In any
event, Ambrose goes on to say that “mystically, the two thieves represent the
two sinful people who were to be crucified by baptism with Christ (Rom. 6:3),
whose disagreement likewise represents the difference of believers.” He appears to mean that the good and bad
thieves represent, respectively, those among the baptized who persevere in
righteousness until death, and those among the baptized who fall away.
If this is
so, then the story of the two thieves gives us, as Aquinas says, a foreshadowing
of the Last Judgment, and the eternal salvation or damnation of those
judged. Each of us will share the fate
of either the good thief or the bad thief, and as with them, which destiny we
face will not be a settled matter until we draw our last breath. The story of the two thieves thus does indeed
provide grounds for hope, but also a grave warning against presumption.
Related
posts:
Wonderful post, Ed. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteA beautiful and sober reflection for Good Friday.
ReplyDeleteVery appropriate post, Ed. The "assuredly I say to you" which begins Jesus's opening phrase to the penitent thief is a frequent locution by Jesus to self-authenticate his sayings and is an example of him teaching with authority, unlike the Pharisees. [In John's Gospel, this locution uses two amens instead of one, "verily, verily," perhaps reflecting liturgy in Johannine circles.] It occurred to me about a week ago that this parallels the Divine Speech Self-Authentication Formula in Ezekiel, "I the Lord have spoken" (Ezek 5:17; 17:21, 24; 21:32 [21:37 in the Hebrew]; 24:14; 26:5, 14; 28:10; 30:12; 36:36). I am making final edits on my upcoming Genres and Formulas in the Hebrew Bible: A Glossary which will be published in two volumes. If any of your readers know of a scholarly journal or work which makes this connection, please respond, I have time to add it to the bibliography for that entry.
ReplyDeleteOne other point on this wonderful passage that I have not seen mentioned in a commentary (but I suspect that someone must have noticed it). The plea of the penitent thief has echoes with Nehemiah's plea, "Remember me, O my God, for good" (Neh 13:31). In the oldest complete Hebrew Bible, the Leningrad Codex dated to 1009 of which I have a facsimile edition, this is the last sentence in the Hebrew Bible! Nehemiah is the only narrator of a historical or biographical book in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament to interrupt the narrative and make personal pleas to God.
(The genre of autobiographical apology in Neh 5:14-6:14 and 13:1-31 for those interested.) One assumes that Nehemiah received a similar answer to that received by the penitent thief.
Dr. Finlay,
DeleteI see that you are a professor of biblical studies at Azuza Pacific U. You have my respect. L' Chaim!
L'Chaim, MJR!
DeleteI shared this beautiful reflection with my cousin today!
ReplyDeleteMatthew and Mark use very similar phrasing (though not identical): " the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him" and "Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him."
ReplyDeleteNothing prevents us from reading this as saying, in effect, "taking the class of 'those crucified with him' as a single class, that class heaped insults on him". This is a true statement, because someone in the class heaped insults on him. It is not necessary, in speaking of actions of a group, that the action be shared equally by every member of the group. The Scriptures speak of the actions of "the Jews" that was true of only some and not all.
On a separate matter, some have objected to the Good Thief's comment Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds that it could be taken to imply that crucifixion was a fitting and just punishment for civil crimes, and not torture. But it is not necessary to conclude that the Good Thief is commenting on the Roman practice, rather on the end result: he is noting the fittingness of the treatment they have borne given their evil actions. He is clearly NOT commenting on the justice of the Romans, for he does not name them, effectively he implicitly ascribes the cause to God himself. And this is seen throughout the Scriptures: God uses unholy men to carry out his just punishments at times (e.g. the Assyrians). The sins of the unholy men in acting on their selfishness does not put off God's intention that a just punishment be levied.
Like the Good Thief, I hope in Christ's mercy now at and my death.
You're trying too hard to harmonize the two accounts. There's a difference between making a generalization about a large group (e.g. "the Germans invaded France") and about a very small, clearly-defined group ("the Axis dictators toured the city"). In the second case, which most closely parallels what we see in Mark/Matthew, nobody in their right mind would ever conclude that "the Axis dictators" referred only to Hitler and not to Mussolini, and without the testimony of Luke, nobody would read the statement in Mark/Matthew that way either. That's not the way real people use language (at least when they're not trying to harmonize two different accounts for theological reasons). To give another example, if someone told you "the brothers beat me up" and you later found out only one of the two brothers had done so, you would rightly conclude that the person who said so was either mistaken or lying. So, the most straightforward reading is either that Mark/Matthew didn't know about the tradition of one of the condemned repenting, or Luke invented the episode to highlight the response that all people will have the scandal of the crucifixion: they will either mock, or recognized the crucified criminal as Lord. Inventing dialogue for the didactic purposes or even just to increase versimilitude was an accepted practice in the Greco-Roman world.
ReplyDelete“Do not despair, one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume, one of the thieves was damned”. Possibly St. Augustine.
ReplyDelete"One thief was saved that no sinner might despair, but only one, that no sinner might presume" (Bishop J. C. Ryle).
DeleteThe Good Thief, St. Dismas.
ReplyDeleteDr Feser,
ReplyDeleteI wish you, your family and everyone here a Happy and Blessed Easter.
Happy Easter to you and your family, Prof!
DeleteWishing everyone else here a Happy Easter as well! May the Grace of Christ always be with you all!
And by his grace, may this blog always be a space for respectful and intellectual discourse that eventually leads more souls to our faith.
Resurrexit, sicut dixit, Alleluia !
The good thief is used by protestants as an argument against purgatory. They say that since this thief did not live a moral life, and Jesus still said that he would enter paradise already today, then purgatory cannot exist, because if it existed then the good thief surely would first have to spend some time in purgatory before entering the paradise. Any thoughts about that?
ReplyDeleteI can't see how that is a good argument against Purgatory to begin with.
DeleteFor one thing, the Good Thief was being crucified. He saw himself as suffering for his crimes. Thus, after his conversion, he would have been suffering with the appropriate intention to expiate the punishment for his sins.
"But the other [thief] answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?
"And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil." (Luke 23:40-41)
If crucifixion is a fitting form of suffering to carry the redemption of the whole world, what would prevent it from being the means of expiation for the the sins of one repentant sinner? After all, the Catholic Church has never taught that the punishment due to sins cannot be satisfied on this earth.
The Church has taught that the degree to which punishment is satisfied is proportional to the love and intention with which such punishment is endured. The Good Thief obviously loved Our Lord enough to publicly defend him against the surrounding rabble.
Jesus can forgive not only the guilt of sin but also the temporal penalty due to it.
DeleteMoreover, the temporal penalty of sin is routinely forgiven as a result of acts of charity (which means first of all loving God and then, when applicable, loving one's neighbour for the love of God). Who knows how great were the acts of charity that the good thief performed during his final hour.
A period of extended time after death is not an essential aspect of the purgation necessary to be ready and fit for heaven. What is necessary is that the purgation be sufficient to make one fit for heaven, but God can accomplish this purgation in a multitude of ways. Some people accomplish it all or nearly all on Earth. For example, one of the standard Catholic teachings on capital punishment is that when the criminal wholly embraces his death as a fitting punishment for his offenses, this can constitute a major (or even complete) purgation of his sinful desires, and thus make him fit or almost fit for heaven all by itself.
DeleteIn addition, God himself can directly step in and fully repair a person's soul so that it is cleansed of all defects and made fitting for His immediate presence all at one moment, without any period of time for the recipient to wait or endure. This may occur as a one-off ad hoc decision by His divine mercy, or as a kind of a "standard" handling for persons who die by reason of an act of heroic adherence to God's will, such as martyrs whose very blood is attested to obtain for them the grace of baptism. The Good Thief's testimony to Jesus's divine status - in the trying conditions of crucifixion - is sufficient to account him the first such martyr after Christ's death. (Though St. Stephen is often accounted the first martyr, various Fathers refer to St. Dismas as a martyr, Cyprian and Augustine.)
Jesus's words are sufficient for us to conclude that Dismas reached heaven "this day". However, they are not - all by themselves - sufficient to conclude that he did not have to suffer some period of time in purgation, even if very short. One may opine that he entered Purgatory for a short time and then entered heaven "this day". I don't have that opinion, I think it more likely that at the moment of Jesus dying on the cross his mercy was so fulsome that he would have accomplished all of the purgation necessary for Dismas in the very midst of Jesus' words attesting to Dismas being destined for heaven, for this accomplishing through the word spoken is a regular feature of divine action.
Yes, nowhere the Catholic Church says that Purgatory requires "time" (in this sense of the word). It could be instantaneous.
DeleteAnother possible approach is to link this with the concept of Indulgences: "an indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven". So St Dismas could have obtained an analogous grace by Jesus himself.
I'm a protestant but it cannot be used against purgatory for the simple reason that the true rendering is, "I say unto you today, You shall be with me in paradise". The today refers to the day Jesus uttered those words NOT the day the thief entered paradise. See Moses, "I say unto you today, You shall surely perish from the land you are about to enter "
Delete@ Tony:
Delete"In addition, God himself can directly step in and fully repair a person's soul so that it is cleansed of all defects and made fitting for His immediate presence all at one moment, without any period of time for the recipient to wait or endure."
1. How do you know?
2. If God can instantly remove our defects, why doesn't he just create us with less defects in the first place, thereby reducing the amount of evil and suffering in the world?
@Anonymous
Delete"@Tony"
1. God is Omniscient and All-Powerful and is All-Merciful by definition. Thus, God has the ability to allow us to retain our natural defects. What ability God has He can exercise.
(It is important to note you have at least a partial burden of proof for the possibility that God doesn't have that freedom - especially after the above points are considered.)
Substantiate the doubt please.
“That which can be asserted without evidence [reasons], can be dismissed without evidence.”
2. The observations that dissolve the more fundamental 'problem of evil' also would satisfy questions about some defects. If evil and suffering exist, the problem is qualitatively the same for more or for lesser quantities of evil - your objection would apply regardless of the amount.
If you want to argue further that additional quantity matters, you will need to provide reasons such would matter.
The observations regarding the basic 'problem of evil' is that suffering and physical ills are only relative evils that do carry unique potential and beauty (e.g. for courage, bravery, loyalty tested under stress) that are not possible otherwise. Moral evils would make sense given a free will capable of achieving additional perfection. In other words, a moveable will must by definition...well...be moveable.
What is contradictory, given these observations with regard to evil and physical 'evils,' with the idea that God would require some beauty and courage (of atonement and sacrifice) in return for the forgiveness of ugliness and malice?
Thank you for your thoughts.
There are, however, some important counterpoints that must be considered.
Quite interesting. The day that you posted this, I gave a chapel address at the Christian school where I used to teach, on the impenitent thief (I had previously spoken on Barabbas, and on the penitent thief). Although mine was a tad more Protestant, I drew essentially the same conclusions as yourself, especially regarding the danger of presumption --- just before my address, we sang from Psalm 95:6-11.
ReplyDeleteI think of the unrepentant thief as a prototype of the “God in the dock “ thinking described by CS Lewis
ReplyDelete