sermonette: Jesus and the Robber

Did the Robber Go To Heaven?
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Given 24-May-03; Sermon #613s; 21 minutes

Description: (show)

---

Thank you, Bill. I thought you were going to give us all Irish songs to to sing. Oh, come and let us worship him and oh, give thanks unto our God and what all the other old songs that are in there. You did not know they were Irish, did you? Hope everyone had a good week. Uh, looks like our ranks are a little thin today, but I think that's probably just because of the holiday weekend people are off probably visiting other places. That's perfectly all right. Hope they have a good weekend. A verse that many people, Protestants and Catholics, primarily used to prove the immortality of their of the soul. And their belief in a person going directly to heaven when he dies is Luke 23:43. This of course is the account of the robber who is on the cross next to Jesus, and he repents, and Jesus answers him assuredly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise. Now that's how we say it, and I'll get to that later, but I want to explain this section today. We'll start in verse 49. Luke 2339, excuse me, I said 49. It's actually 39. Luke 23:39 because the section in itself is interesting in its own right, notwithstanding the general misunderstanding of verse 43. So let's go there. Luke 23:39 will read down through verse 43. 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. OK. The first thing we notice when we go through this section. This is a contrast, a very marked contrast between the two criminals, and by the way, I should explain this word that's translated criminals. Criminals is fine, but it's a rather general term. You could be a criminal and be a child molester or you can be a criminal and you could be a murderer or you could be a criminal in this country if you run a red light or what what not. It wouldn't be the same type of crime, but it's still a crime. This particular word is really better as robber. I think the King James version has it as robber, um. I'm not exactly sure of that, but that is better because um what it is actually implying. It is not just someone who commits a crime, but someone who commits a crime with violence. And that is exactly what robbery implies. Thievery is, you know, any old burglar that goes in the house, takes something, or, you know, maybe a pickpocket you would call a thief or someone who steals a purse. But if that person comes up to you and knocks you on the head and steals your purse, he has become a robber. Robbery implies not just thievery, but thievery with violence. So that's what this is. It's a person who took things violently. Some go so far as to say it should probably properly be a highway man. You know, the Robin Hood type who goes and steals from the rich and, and gives to the poor, that sort of thing, or steals from the rich and keeps everything. But uh, What it was was probably these two were part of a group or separate groups of insurrectionists. They hated the Romans and part of their rebellion against the Romans was to waylay wealthy people, mostly Romans, who would come along and along the road, and they'd take their money and they'd use it to finance their rebellion. And so either robbers or insurrectionists, even highwaymen, would, would work fine, but these were men that were violent criminals. Not just your run of the mill thieves. Anyway, in this contrast between the two criminals, We find that they were both justly condemned. For it to be crucified, that is they had gone through the same process that Jesus Christ had and been condemned as a criminal. And probably as traitors to the nation, you know, capital crime. And But we find that one of them. is simply an evil man through and through. The other one, if we can take something from the way he replies here, is that We would call him a freedom fighter. He was not necessarily an evil man, but he did hate the Romans, and he did want his country to be free. We might call him a patriot. And so he was basically a good man as humans go, but he had felt that doing acts of violence for his nation, as he called it, was fine, and so he had done these deeds and had been caught and he was justly condemned. OK, here in verse 39 we have the word blasphemed. Again, it's a fine translation. It works, but it could be better because the word implies something that keeps on happening. So what we find is the first criminal kept on blaspheming or kept on reviling. It was like he had this constant torrent of abuse that he was putting on Jesus, um, mocking him that here he was supposedly the Messiah. Why can't he saves himself and the rest of us that are up here for the nation. You know, we are all on the same team here. Why do not if you're really the Messiah, get yourself down off that cross and save us, and we will go kill some more Romans. is basically the idea he had. So we find here that he was just constantly demeaning and deriding Jesus, and As we go into verse 40, we find that this is what got the other robber to start speaking. Again, we have the word rebuked here. The other answered and rebuked him. And again it's a fine word. It does. The does justice, but the sense is that not only did he rebuke him, but he stopped him from talking. He checked him, he interrupted him. It's like this one robber was up there just pouring on the vile, um, venom on Jesus and the other one said, enough already. Stop your jabbering. And then he went on with what he said, Is this really how you want to spend your last breaths? Is this how you want to meet your maker? Who are you to spout such condemnation knowing that you're under the same sentence of death? You know, where is your high moral ground, buddy? And what the second robber said certainly shut the 1st 1 up because he doesn't say anything again. In verse 41 we have the second robber. Admitting his guilt. In fact, he says we are only getting what we deserve for our crimes. We're here because we did it and we got caught and now we have to face the executioner, or we have already faced the executioner. We're just waiting to die. So In terms of, let's say spirituality or repentance, this is the first step. He admits his guilt and basically, in Jesus hearing, being there in Jesus' hearing, he confesses it to God. He confesses that he's a sinner. He confesses that he's done these crimes. Most people, when they get into these situations, they say that I'm innocent. I'm pure as the driven snow. I'm Lily white. But he says, no, we were wrong, we sinned, we are guilty of the crime. So as it says there in I John 1:9, that this is the step that we must take. If we have sin, then we confess it to God, and he's very just and fair and wonderful to forgive us our sins. And then He goes a step further. Where he professes Jesus' innocence. Here is one who's on a stake. Next to him suffering the same sentence of crucifixion, but he says this man has done nothing improper. Or is that word maybe is best translated amiss. There is nothing out of sorts about this man. He's done nothing perverse or out of place or improper. This man is innocent. So how he knew this we do not know. But it's possible that in His travels around um. The nation, these 2 may have crossed paths before. That the robber had even heard him preach at some point. We do not know. Now if this one was an insurrection insurrectionist. He would have been waiting for Messiah to come. To Um, take them from under the burden of the Romans. And so he would have been aware of the various ones around that were preaching and those who seemed to be maybe a Messiah. And so he might have had some idea that this is the sort of thing that Jesus was preaching. But up until this point he hadn't put 2 and 2 together yet. But while up on the cross or on the stake or whatever it was, I think he began to get an inkling of what everything was about. What he says in verse 42 gives an indication that he knew something of Jesus's doctrine. He says, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And what did Jesus preach? The gospel of the kingdom of God. And so he put 2 and 2 together here. Notice too that he also does not ask for forgiveness. Or salvation All he says is remember me when your kingdom comes, when your reign begins. Now there is a hint here. That the robber realized that Christ's kingdom was a literal future kingdom beyond the death of Jesus. Because he puts a future cast on it when you come in your into your kingdom. It's not something that was happening at that time, but it was something that would come in the future. And so the robber says, when that time comes, Lord. Remember me. Remember the one who died next to you. And if this was what he had done, and he had put two things, these two things together, he had made a leap of faith and understanding, even beyond what Jesus' own disciples had figured out by this point. Maybe it was because that he was actually going through this fulfillment of prophecy that the light came on and he remembered all those Old Testament prophecies that talked about the Messiah and how things would have to be. I do not know. I'm just saying perhaps. That in the stress of the situation when his mind was Uh, so focused because of all the suffering and the pain he was going through in crucifixion that the leap was made in his mind, and it triggered from what he knew of Christ's teaching and what was actually taking place. At the time, and he saw aha. This is what he meant. This is what the prophets meant. I do not know. It's possible. It could be that the Father was also working with his mind. I would say that would probably be a very good possibility. And then we have in verse 43 Jesus's reply. And really, it's an affirmation that he recognized that this robber understood a very important point. That he got it, that he had understood things correctly and put things into their proper perspective. And if he continued in this understanding and the attitude of humility in which he approached Jesus. That attitude of repentance, if he still had this attitude when he was resurrected, then he would surely be in his kingdom. But this is what it takes to be in his kingdom. Recognition of his own sins. Recognition of Christ's sinlessness and a willingness and a desire to be there with Christ. Among other things, of course, but those are good places to start. And so Jesus says, if you continue with this, you'll surely be in my kingdom with me. Now this verse contains a grammatical ambiguity. This is probably what most of you understand. And it centered on the word today. Now in the Greek, as in the English, It can go with either part of the sentence. It can be read as assuredly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise, or it can be read assuredly I say to you today you will be with me in paradise. The word today In its proximity, though, in the way that it is in the Greek, seems to refer or to modify the verb. Say Rather than the verb will be. It stands between them. And we can see this a little bit better if we see what the Greek literally says. As we would transliterate it or translate it, it goes this way assuredly to you, I say today with me you will be in paradise. Now, Let me say that again. Assuredly to you, I say today with me you will be in paradise. So the way it is in the Greek coming directly after the words say. Seems to modify the word say rather than the words will be, which are severalwords Down in the sentence. The comma, which is not in the Greek, obviously it's an English piece of punctuation, is thus misplaced. It should come after the word today rather than before the word today, and that way it would read assuredly I say to you today you will be with me in paradise. He's saying that I'm saying this today. And he's assuring him that he will be with him in paradise. Now One of the things we should remember. That where was Jesus? That day He was in the tomb He was dead Jesus was not in paradise that day. Nor could the robber be in paradise that day. Both of them were dead. And so even if we took it as I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise. It's not true, and so we would, therefore say that Jesus was a liar. But he did not say that. He said, I say to you today. You will be with me in paradise. Now the commentators make a big deal of the word paradise here. But it really should not be that difficult for us to figure out what it refers to. It's a reference to the story of the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was known and still is known as Paradise. It doesn't suggest a place so much as a condition. A condition untainted by sin or corruption. The Garden of Eden was paradise. But it ceased being paradise once Adam and Eve sin, and they were kicked out of it, forbidden to return. But if we look in the context, and it's so important that we always look at things in context here, you'll see what Jesus responded to. He said the robber said, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And Jesus' reply was, You will be with me in paradise. So what does paradise refer to? God's kingdom. Which will of course be a time untainted by sin, correct? Or untainted by The corruption of human nature. In its ultimate um Would you call it reality, it's ultimate form. And You'll also know that when Christ returns to rule on the earth, it's not heaven, which many believe this word means, but he comes back to the earth and He rules on the earth. Revelation 5:10 says that they will rule with Him on the earth. Now, you may be thinking of II Corinthians 12:4, where Paul says he was taken up to paradise, but right in that context, the word paradise is modified. It's actually defined in verse 2 as the third heaven. So we must allow the context to define its terms. In this case, the same word means two different things. However, both mean times or places of sinlessness and of incorruption. So both would, would be accurate. Understandings as in the third heaven with Christ, I mean with God. And Christ as well as God's kingdom. So we need to look to see how it's modified and defined within the context. Let's finish in Hebrews 11. If you will, and I think this puts the Final nail in the coffin, so to speak, pardon the pun. Um Hebrews 11:37. Through verse 40 we are at the end of the Uh, the faith chapter where all the heroes of faith have been Uh Talked about And how what they have done great things for Christ, and then Paul or the author here. Makes some summing comments as he finishes. They were stoned. Verse 37. They were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains in dens and caves of the earth, and all these, notice this, all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise. God, having provided something better for us. That they should not be made perfect apart from us. So my question is, if the heroes of faith from Seth or Abel all the way down through these others that the prophets that were tormented in such a way have not been made perfect apart from us, and we certainly haven't been made perfect yet. Then why would God give priority to a man, a robber, a criminal who made what is really a deathbed repentance? Why would this robber be Allowed to go to heaven and be perfected, and Abraham was not. So We have to remember that all others, including David, as it says in Acts 2:29 and also in verse 34, This man, this robber, is awaiting the resurrection in the grave.