Who were the other two men on the crosses with Jesus? Depending on which Gospel you read – and which translation -you’ll get different answers. But the deeper question is why their story matters at all.
What is the mystery about the other two men on the crosses?
I’ve heard different things about what these two men did. Some say they were common thieves.
Others claimed that they were guilty of murder.
But if we read the verses for ourselves,
we’ll be totally confused!
We see different words depending on the Gospel read.
Further, we see different words depending on the translation used, for instance the NIV versus the KJV versus The Message.
Even further, we see different words depending on which version of the translation, for example the 1984 NIV versus the 2010 NIV.
See what I mean? What are we supposed to make of that?
Does it matter?
Well, yes, it does. Read on to find out why.
What does the Bible say about the other two men on the crosses?
We’ll begin with the 1984 NIV translation. I only included the relevant verses, since the various Gospels record much more about the crucifixion than just the verses on the other two men. I also highlighted the portions giving the crimes committed.
The other two men on the crosses, as recorded by Luke. 1984 NIV translation.
The Crucifixion – Luke
23:33-43 pp — Mt 27:33-44; Mk 15:22-32; Jn 19:17-24
…
Lk 23:32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.
…
Lk 23:39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
Lk 23:40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
Lk 23:42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’”
Lk 23:43 Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
So, in English we read the word criminal. We’ll circle back and see the Greek word in the original text shortly.
The other two men on the crosses, as recorded by Matthew. 1984 NIV translation.
The Crucifixion – Matthew
…
38 Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”
…
44 In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
🕯️What’s going on here?
You may notice something here that feels like a discrepancy.
Two passages, two perspectives, and at first glance, they don’t seem to say the same thing. Even at second and third glances, they don’t seem to match.
Before rushing to resolve it, pause and notice your own instinct.
Do you want to ignore it and move on? After all, it’s God’s Word – it can’t be wrong. Can it?
Or do you think, it’s wrong? It’s time to just skip this whole piece because it’s based on a mistake, or maybe even a lie.
Or, do you want to dig in and find out what’s going on here? I need to know the truth. The tough part of this option is that – sometimes – in Middle Eastern logic (remember, Jesus and His disciples were all in the Middle East) – two things can be in conflict but still both are right. Just look around you, and you’ll see times when even us Westerners do that – although maybe without acknowledging it as such.
All those impulses reveal something about how we approach Scripture, and life, – and about whether we want to believe what the text is inviting us to see.
Sometimes the Gospel writers emphasize different moments. Sometimes a person’s heart changes mid‑story. Sometimes our own assumptions shape what we expect to find.
The question isn’t only “What’s the right answer?” It’s also: “What is this revealing about my desire to believe?“
Let’s use this moment to look deeper, not away.
Now, back to the words used to describe the other two men on the crosses with Jesus. This time, we see the Greek word translated as robbers. It’s different. Or is it? Once again, we’ll return to the Greek words shortly.
The other two men on the crosses, as recorded by Mark. 1984 NIV translation.
The Crucifixion – Mark
15:22-32 pp — Mt 27:33-44; Lk 23:33-43; Jn 19:17-24
…
27 They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. 29 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 come down from the cross and save yourself!”
Mk 15:31 In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! 32 Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
🕯️What’s going on here?
You may have noticed a missing verse.
Did you notice the jump from verse 27 to 29? What happened to verse 28? Why was it dropped?
There is no verse 28. At least, not in the 1984 or 2010 NIV translation. Here’s the note on why they did not include it. Some manuscripts include here words similar to Luke 22:37.
Well, that didn’t explain much. The most likely scenarios? 1) It was there and got dropped by mistake. 2) It wasn’t in the original or early copies, but a scribe added it because of the similarity and thought it was important – very possibly added as a side note.
In any case, given our topic today, the Like 22:37 reference is relevant. Not that it clears things up. It actually makes them a bit worse. For a while. So – let’s keep going with that additional twist.
The segment we’re about to read takes place between the Last Supper and when Jesus prayed on the Mount of Olives, just before His arrest.
The Last Supper – Luke
…
Lk 22:35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
Lk 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
Lk 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.
…
🕯️What’s going on here?
Another passage – another new word.
Well, it just got more complicated.
But let’s start to unravel at least part of the mysterious words used to describe these two men. To do that, we go back further – to Isaiah.
Luke 22:37 is a quote from Isaiah 53:12, which is in a section the NIV titles The Suffering and Glory of the Servant.
The Suffering and Glory of the Servant – Isaiah
…
Isa 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
…
Well, that’s complicated, isn’t it? We read transgressors. But this time, the word is in translation from both the Old and New Testaments. I love it when this happens, because it gives us a really good look at how the Jewish Scripture fits in with Jesus’ life and teachings.
Where are we now?
Let’s see where we are now. We have three Gospels, one Old Testament book of prophecy, and three English words that come from three Greek words and one Hebrew word. Is this going to be messy? Or will it tell us something important? As Christians, we believe every word from God is important. So the opportunity to examine all these things within one contextual setting is sure to be very meaningful.
All the words used to describe the other two men on the crosses with Jesus
❓What are the words used to describe the other two men on the crosses with Jesus?
- Criminals – from Luke
- Robbers – from Matthew
- Robbers – from Mark
- Transgressors – from Luke
- Transgressors – from Isaiah
So, let’s check out those words. See what they mean.
Were the other two men on the crosses criminals, as in Luke?
Lk 23:32 Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed.
Yeah – it says “criminals”. But then, that’s a translation. Since we have apparent discrepancies here, let’s go back to the original language – in this case Greek – to see what it meant back when it was said/written.
📖 Contextual Clarification: criminals → κακοῦργος [kakourgos /kak·oor·gos/]
ℹ️ Criminals in Context: It generally gets defined as malefactor. That’s not a word most of us use on a regular basis. Translating it as criminal at least gets us a common word. Maybe too common? Let’s keep going and see what we can learn from other passages.
Luke – criminals – conclusion
All the definitions lead to a broad answer. A violation of the law is anything from a misdemeanor to a felony. Or the even broader range of a slap on the wrist to a felony with special circumstances. The same is true for one who does evil. Therefore, our criminal is potentially guilty of breaking any law in the books.
We don’t have a precise definition at all from the word Luke used.
Were the other two men on the crosses robbers, as in Matthew?
Mt 27:38 Two robbers were crucified with him
📖 Contextual Clarification robbers → ἀρχιλῃστής, λῃστής [lestes /lace·tace/]
ℹ️ Robbers in Context: So, we have robbers instead of criminals. In case you didn’t think about one implication of that change, consider this. All robbers are criminals – but not all criminals are robbers. If nothing else then, Matthew appears to have a narrower definition of who these two men were. But then, think about how we classify robbery in the US, and I believe in the UK as well – and probably other countries. IT can be simple robbery – no one physically hurt. But it could escalate to minor injuries, great bodily harm, and even death.
ℹ️ Interpretive Edges: There’s also one source that brought up the possibility of this being a political issue – zealots. They were the ones who wanted Jesus to come and save them from the Romans, which of course wasn’t the case. We’ll get more into that in just a moment.
Was Jesus a zealot?
I put in the entire passages so you can see what transpired. Pay special attention to the underlined verses.
Jesus Before Pilate – John
18:29-40 pp — Mt 27:11-18, 20-23; Mk 15:2-15; Lk 23:2, 3, 18-25
Jn 18:28 Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”
Jn 18:30 “If he were not a criminal,” they replied, “we would not have handed him over to you.”
Jn 18:31 Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.”
“But we have no right to execute anyone,” the Jews objected. 32 This happened so that the words Jesus had spoken indicating the kind of death he was going to die would be fulfilled.
Jn 18:33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
Jn 18:34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
Jn 18:35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
Jn 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Jn 18:37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
Jn 18:38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. 39 But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?”
Jn 18:40 They shouted back, “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
❓Did you notice these three things:
- Pilate asked the Jewish leaders what charges were brought against Jesus. They responded that Jesus was a criminal. More on that after the list is done.
- Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. In other words, He’s not a political threat to the Romans.
- Pilate told the Jews that there was no basis for any charge, criminal or political, against Jesus.
Jesus was not a zealot. But …
No, Jesus wasn’t a zealot.
Having said that, I need to continue down this train of thought. It’s part of the evidence in what’s turning into the mystery of the words used to describe the other two men on the crosses with Jesus. It’s important for us to understand this – as much as we can and as much as our attention span can accept.
If it wasn’t important, I’d stop here. But I feel it’s too important to do that, So, I just ask you to trust me – and hang in there with this.
Introducing a moral concept into the word criminal
I’ll bet you didn’t see that coming. A moral concept with the word criminal.
Here’s why – and why it’s an important distinction. The Greek word has more of a moral context. For one thing, on the zealot front, the fact that the Jebwish leaders used this word when speaking to the Romans does not indicate they were looking for a charge of rebellion against the Romans.
📖 Contextual Clarification: Introducing a moral component
ℹ️ Meaning Scope: And so, we see the difference. This is where the distinction between moral guilt and legal guilt comes out – at least in the original language. For us in English? It’s not there without further explanation, like what you’re reading now.
The word Luke uses for the two men on the crosses is a legal term – the kind applied to people who commit actual, punishable crimes.
But the Jewish leaders accused Jesus using a word that carries a moral charge – as if His very nature was corrupt.
We’ll see more in a bit as to the significance of that difference. The implications of it are far reaching. But we’re not quiite ready for it yet.
The zealot portion continues. Obviously, this is something God wanted us to be aware of. There’s seemingly no other reason why it would keep being brought up. If it was a minor thing, a brief mention would’ve done the job. But there’s too much here to just brush it over.
Herod and Pilate both rejected the “zealot” idea.
Luke’s gospel specifically says neither Herod nor Pilate accepted the rebellion argument of the zealots.
Jesus Before Pilate and Herod – Luke
22:67-71 pp — Mt 26:63-66; Mk 14:61-63; Jn 18:19-21
23:2, 3 pp — Mt 27:11-14; Mk 15:2-5; Jn 18:29-37
23:18-25 pp — Mt 27:15-26; Mk 15:6-15; Jn 18:39—19:16
Lk 22:66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67 “If you are the Christ,’” they said, “tell us.”
Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”
Lk 22:70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?”
He replied, “You are right in saying I am.”
Lk 22:71 Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
Lk 23:1 Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2 And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.”
Lk 23:3 So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied.
Lk 23:4 Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”
Lk 23:5 But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.”
Lk 23:6 On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. 7 When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.
Lk 23:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle. 9 He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. 11 Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. 12 That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.
Lk 23:13 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, 14 and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. 15 Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. 16 Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.’”
Notice, there’s no verse 17. Some manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel include words similar to Mk 15:6 – Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested.
Lk 23:18 With one voice they cried out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
Lk 23:20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Lk 23:22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”
Lk 23:23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.
The reality was, back then the Romans didn’t care if Jesus was subverting the Jewish nation or not. All the Romans cared about was not having a rebellion against them.
The Jewish leaders did say, He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar. However, if the Romans perceived a problem, it probably would have already been known. After all, taxes were collected from Jews by Jews, who then gave it to their Roman masters. It’s hard to imagine problems of any consequence that weren’t already known.
Finally, the Jewish leaders finished with, claims to be Christ, a king. Since the Romans didn’t fear this charge as evidenced by earlier passages, there was no reason to act on it.
Were the other two men on the crosses robbers, as in Mark?
Mark 15:27 They crucified two robbers with him,
Well, at least we can keep this one simple. The Greek word used in Mark is exactly the same as the one used by Matthew.
Were the other two men on the crosses transgressors, as in Luke?
Lk 22:37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
This one’s interesting. It gets into moral ground again. And yes, the other two men on the crosses are included. But – look what Jesus said about it.
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
Twice, Jesus says it must be fulfilled in Him. So, yet again, the moral interpretation comes in when it applies to Jesus – not only to the two men. As before, hold onto that thought – moral interpretations when Jesus is part of the way the word is used – legal when just the two men.
Were the other two men on the crosses transgressors, as in Isaiah?
Is 53:12 was numbered with the transgressors.
📖 Theological Function: The Isaiah passage is about Jesus as the One who will pay the price for the sins of God’s people. And what are those sins? They are transgressions from The Law. From God’s Law.
ℹ️ The Words Behind the Story: With all those words and thoughts, and with the context we now have, we can now know everything we need to know about the other two men on the crosses with Jesus.
Who were the other two men on the crosses with Jesus?
So – do you know who they were?
❓ Who were the other two men on the cross with Jesus?
⁉️ They were – us.
Maybe you already knew that. If not, did you figure it out? Do you agree?
Whether it’s for more understanding or for more convincing, let’s look at a bit more.
Conclusions on “who were the transgressors in the Bible passages?”
The following is a summary of some of the hidden/collapsed details above, plus a search of my eLibrary by the AI Agent built for just that purpose by LOGOS/Faithlife.
Question: Is the reference to transgressors [in the passages we looked at] a statement of 1) sinners in general, 2) Jesus being crucified with the other two men, or 3) both?
🤖✨ Response:
The reference encompasses both dimensions – it operates simultaneously as a statement about sinners generally and as a specific allusion to the crucifixion scene with the two criminals.
The “transgressors” represent lawless ones or covenant violators, but the apostles themselves qualify as transgressors, and from the moment of this utterance forward, Jesus will be “reckoned with transgressors” in his identification with sinful humanity and his death on behalf of all, crucified between two malefactors.1 This dual reference reflects Luke’s theological vision: the disciples themselves are among the transgressors whom Jesus came to save 1, yet Jesus frames this quotation as his final passion prediction before being handed over to sinful men.1
The broader context confirms this simultaneity. When Jesus explains to the disciples that their future will be more burdensome than their past, he quotes Isaiah 53:12 – “he was numbered among transgressors” – implying this is fulfilled in him. 2 Yet Mark 15:28 states -in reference to Jesus being crucified along with two criminals – that he fulfills the Scriptures because he was numbered among transgressors.2 Rather than choosing between these readings, the prophecy functions on both levels: it speaks to Jesus’s identification with all sinners (the disciples included) while simultaneously finding concrete expression in his literal positioning between two condemned criminals.
Remarkably, in the very context of identifying the disciples as transgressors, Jesus promises them that they will sit with him at his table in his kingdom and appoints them to thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.1 The “transgressors” language thus encompasses humanity’s sinful condition while pointing to the specific historical reality of the crucifixion – both the general and the particular are held together in Isaiah’s prophecy.
1 Arthur A. Just Jr., Luke 9:51–24:53, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1997), 852–853.
2 John D. Barry, “Servant Songs,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). [See here, here.]
While we could argue about which of the varying meanings of the words the different authors chose – the different words the translators chose – we can, and I believe should, choose the route that’s so common to the Middle Eastern thinking I referenced earlier. If they all make sense, then why can’t it be all of them. The Western push for “one best answer” prevents us from doing this. And yet, shouldn’t it be the obvious choice, given that the original writers were Middle Eastern, the original readers, were Middle Eastern – and it’s their language and culture we must relate to in order to more completely understand their message – God’s message – to us.
Conclusions on “who were the criminals in the Bible passages?”
The following is another summary of some of the hidden/collapsed details above, plus a search of my eLibrary by the AI Agent built for just that purpose by LOGOS/Faithlife.
Question: How does that tie in with the Greek word translated as criminal in Luke 23:32 – with one applied to Jesus and the other to the two men on the crosses and by extension, to us as well, since Jesus was crucified for all?
🤖✨ Response:
The distinction between κακοποιός (in John 18:30) and κακοῦργος (in Luke 23:32) creates a striking theological irony that illuminates the crucifixion narrative.
κακοποιός describes someone “doing or making evil,” while κακοῦργος denotes one “creating or originating the bad,” designating a more energetic, aggressive, initiating criminality. 1 The stronger term – κακοῦργος – is reserved for the two actual criminals executed alongside Jesus, yet the phrase “two other criminals” explicitly excludes Jesus from this designation. 2
This linguistic precision carries profound meaning. When the Jewish authorities accuse Jesus in John 18:30 using the weaker term κακοποιός, they’re claiming he embodies moral corruption – he is evil. Yet Luke’s narrative reserves the harsher, more legally definitive κακοῦργος for the genuine malefactors on the crosses. Jesus stands accused of being morally depraved, but he is not classified as a criminal in the legal sense.
The irony deepens when we recognize that Jesus, though innocent of actual criminality, was crucified between those who bore that designation. The stronger Greek word is used for the two crucified with Christ, though only Luke refers to them as malefactors. By extension, this positioning reflects the theological reality you identify: Jesus was executed in solidarity with transgressors and criminals on behalf of all humanity. He bore the consequences meant for those who genuinely “create and originate the bad,” absorbing the judgment that belongs to us as well.
The linguistic hierarchy—moral corruption (κακοποιός) versus criminal agency (κακοῦργος)—thus frames the substitutionary dimension of the crucifixion: the morally innocent one dies between the criminally guilty, representing all who deserve condemnation.
1 Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard Frederic Vos, and John Rea, in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (Moody Press, 1975). [See here, here.]
2 J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 730.
The whole “substitution” thing in religion gets so complicated. And yet, there it is. It’s even in the image at the top of the page.
And it all works in a way we cannot understand – although I hope we all have a better understanding of why things had to happen the way they did . Having a better understanding of the terms used – like criminal, robber, malefactor, transgressor and the various Hebrew and Greek words meant back then – this helps us understand a little bit of something beyond our comprehension.
One more thing – who got crucified?
If it’s still needed, let’s examine one more passage. It’s an End Times passage. And yet, the picture it paints is the same one the crucifixion paints. Check it out,
The Sheep and the Goats
Mt 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Mt 25:34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Mt 25:37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
Mt 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
Mt 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
Mt 25:44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
Mt 25:45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Mt 25:46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
In the parable: The sheep on His right. The goats on His left.
At the crucificion: One on the right. The other on the left.
The ones on the right are given the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for them. The ones on the left are told to depart.
That’s just like all of us. Each of us will either be on the right or on the left. There are no other possibilities.
And that brings the story out of history and into our own lives.
But do we want to be saved? Which one of those two men do we want to be?
Did we learn from “Who were the other two men on the crosses?”
Ultimately, we still don’t know what this person did. But in order to get the response that he did from Jesus, there had to be at least a mustard seed size faith within the man.
There is also belief. Faith and Belief. The words by themselves don’t necessarily mean anything. It’s what’s in the heart that matters. Jesus knew what was in this man’s heart when he asked to be remembered. Implicit in this remembrance was a request for forgiveness.
Someone saying these same words, while believing in their hearts that Jesus wouldn’t save them – maybe because what they did was too bad to be forgiven – would have the words, but not the faith. Would they have received the same answer? I don’t believe so. Otherwise, there’s a reward for lying to God. I cannot believe that.
And maybe that’s why the Bible doesn’t say what these men did. It certainly would have been easy enough to put it in.
The problem then would be that a line of sorts would have been drawn in the sand. Anything worse than what the forgiven man did, might have been considered unforgivable. For instance, if he was identified unequivocally as a thief, some would say that a murderer would not have received the same response from Jesus. Had he been identified unequivocally as a murderer, some would say that a mass murderer would not have received the same response. And on and on. No matter what was identified, someone would come up with something worse, and say that Jesus would not have forgiven that person.
The Bible makes it clear there is only one unforgivable sin. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, any sin other than that one is forgivable. Not automatically forgiven, but forgivable. The other two men on the crosses with Jesus showed us that.
There’s one final thing to point out here. Way back in Isaiah, God set the stage for Jesus to be crucified with others. Other transgressors. The other two men on the crosses. So it wasn’t just by accident or a coincidence that they were there. It was for us. Planned for us by God, who wants to save us.
But do we want to be saved? Which one of those two guys do we want to be?
Footnotes:
- 1Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
- 2Grundmann, W. (1964–). κακός, ἄκακος, κακία, κακόω, κακο͂ργος, κακοήθεια, κακοποιέω, κακοποιός, ἐγκακιέω, ἀνεξίκακος. In G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 3, p. 484). Eerdmans.
- 3Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
- 4Rengstorf, K. H. (1964–). λῃστής. In G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 4, p. 262). Eerdmans.
- 5Balz, H. R., & Schneider, G. (1990–). In Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 2, pp. 351–352). Eerdmans.
- 6Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
- 7Swanson, J. (1997). In Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
- 8Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
- 9Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
- 10Swanson, J. (1997). In Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (electronic ed.). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
- 11Strong, J. (1995). In Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.
Discover more from God versus religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.