Jesus’ Promise in Paradise: What the Criminal on the Cross Means for Baptism

At the cross, a condemned criminal turned to Jesus and heard Him say, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." But does this promise mean baptism isn't necessary for salvation, or does it belong to the Old Covenant and Abraham's bosom? As independent, Spirit-filled Pentecostals, we believe Scripture must answer those questions, while making clear what it states directly and what Christians infer.

Luke doesn't tell us whether the criminal was Jewish or Gentile, whether he had been baptized, or whether Paradise was Abraham's bosom. Jesus gave him a personal promise, but this exceptional moment doesn't erase the New Testament's teaching about baptism. We'll begin with the words Jesus spoke and the context of the cross, then compare them with the rest of Scripture and the New Testament's teaching on baptism.

What Happened Between Jesus and the Two Criminals?

Jesus was crucified between two condemned men. Luke calls them criminals, while Matthew and Mark call them robbers. The accounts agree about the scene, but Luke records a conversation the other Gospels do not include. In that exchange, one criminal mocked Jesus, while the other confessed his guilt and asked Jesus to remember him.

Jesus Was Crucified Between Two Criminals

Luke says two criminals were led out with Jesus and crucified beside Him, one on His right and the other on His left. Read the complete account in Luke 23:32-43. The Greek word Luke uses for criminal is kakourgos, a term for a person who commits wrongdoing.

Matthew and Mark describe the same arrangement. Matthew says two robbers were crucified with Jesus, and Mark also places one on either side of Him. Their accounts emphasize the insults directed at Jesus by those nearby. See Matthew 27:38-44 and Mark 15:27-32. Matthew and Mark use the Greek word lestes, commonly translated "robber" or "thief" (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27).

The Gospels do not give these men names. We should stay with what Scripture says, rather than treat later traditions about their identities as Biblical fact.

One Criminal Mocked Him, the Other Asked for Mercy

Luke records that one criminal joined in mocking Jesus, demanding that He save Himself and them. The other rebuked him. He acknowledged that their punishment was deserved, but said Jesus had done nothing wrong. Then he turned to Jesus and asked, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom" (Luke 23:39; Luke 23:42).

Matthew and Mark say the robbers taunted Jesus. Luke's account gives a more particular exchange, showing one man's words of mockery and the other's appeal. We should not claim more than the text tells us about how their responses unfolded. What Luke makes plain is that this criminal recognized his own guilt, recognized Jesus' innocence, and appealed to Jesus as King.

We see the contrast clearly: one demanded rescue on his own terms, while the other humbled himself before Jesus. For another account that points to Jesus' mercy for sinners, Scripture also teaches that no one is beyond His reach while turning to Him.

Jesus Promised Him Paradise

Jesus answered, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). The Greek word translated "Paradise" is paradeisos (Greek word study). Jesus gave the man a direct promise: he would be with Him that day.

Luke does not tell us whether this criminal had been baptized, and we must not add details Scripture leaves unstated. We can say what Jesus said and hold that promise alongside the New Testament's teaching on repentance, faith, and baptism. This extraordinary moment reveals the mercy and authority of Jesus, but it does not give us permission to disregard His other commands.

What Does “Today You Will Be with Me in Paradise” Mean?

Jesus' words in Luke 23:43 are a direct promise to the criminal who asked to be remembered in His kingdom. The standard reading places "today" with the promise: the man would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day. We should also acknowledge the punctuation debate, then let the wording and context guide our understanding.

The Standard Reading Places the Promise That Day

Jesus answered, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43; see also the full passage in Luke 23:32-43). In this familiar reading, "today" tells us when the criminal would be with Jesus in Paradise. Jesus was not speaking vaguely about a future hope. He gave the man a promise tied to that day.

The Greek word translated "today" is sēmeron (Greek word study). The word translated "Paradise" is paradeisos (Greek word study). The sentence promises that the man would be with Jesus in Paradise. The criminal had asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom, and Jesus answered with more than a future remembrance. He promised the man His presence.

The Comma Debate Does Not Settle the Meaning by Itself

Some readers place the comma differently: "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise." In that reading, "today" describes when Jesus spoke, while the promise itself does not say when the man would be with Him. The debate exists because ancient Greek manuscripts did not use modern punctuation consistently, and punctuation marks were not always equivalent to the commas in our printed Bibles.

But we should be careful with this point. It is too broad to claim that ancient manuscripts had no punctuation at all. Some contain marks, though their use varied. The lack of a modern comma does not prove either reading; we must consider the Greek wording and the immediate context. For a closer look at the question, see an analysis of the comma in Luke 23:43.

We find the standard reading persuasive because "today" naturally attaches to the promise that follows: the criminal would be with Jesus in Paradise that day. The alternative is discussed, but it does not erase the plain force of Jesus' answer in the familiar reading.

Jesus’ Promise Does Not Answer Every Question

Luke tells us what Jesus promised, but he does not tell us whether the criminal had been baptized or identify Paradise as Abraham's bosom. We should not turn silence into evidence for either claim. Scripture gives us a clear promise to this man, while the rest of the New Testament teaches repentance, faith, and baptism.

That distinction matters. The criminal's final hours were an extraordinary moment of mercy, and Jesus had authority to promise him life with Him. We can take those words seriously without using one exceptional case to cancel Christ's commands to His followers. For related context on Abraham's Bosom and the faithful dead, we must examine the relevant passages rather than assume Luke explained every detail in this exchange.

Does Paradise Mean the Same Thing as Abraham’s Bosom?

Luke describes Abraham's bosom and Paradise in separate passages, and the wording matters. In Luke 16:19–31, Jesus tells of Lazarus being carried to Abraham's bosom after death. In Luke 23:43, He promises the repentant criminal, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." These passages may be connected, but neither one directly says the two names mean the same place.

Abraham’s Bosom Pictures Welcome and Honor

In Luke 16, Lazarus had been poor, sick, and ignored at the rich man's gate. After death, angels carry him to Abraham's bosom, where he is comforted. The Greek word kolpos, translated "bosom," can describe the chest or a place close beside someone. In this story, it gives us a picture of nearness, welcome, and honor beside Abraham.

The rich man, by contrast, dies and finds himself in torment in Hades. He sees Abraham and Lazarus "afar off," then asks for relief. Abraham answers that the rich man received good things in life while Lazarus received evil things, and that their positions have now changed. Jesus' account is a warning about judgment and about refusing to hear God's word, not a casual description of comfort after death.

A great gulf is fixed between them. Abraham says no one can cross from one side to the other. The text clearly describes separate conditions, comfort for Lazarus and torment for the rich man, with no passage between them. We should not reduce that warning to a detail about geography.

Luke Does Not Name Abraham’s Bosom as Paradise

Jesus uses the word paradeisos when He promises the criminal Paradise (Greek word study). In Luke 16, however, the destination is called "Abraham's bosom," and the place of the rich man's torment is called Hades. Luke does not use paradeisos there, and Jesus does not call Paradise "Abraham's bosom" in Luke 23.

Some Christians interpret Abraham's bosom as the blessed dwelling of the righteous dead and identify it with Paradise. That interpretation connects the passages through their shared promise of comfort and life with God. But it remains an interpretation, not a direct statement in either text. We must keep the distinction clear: Scripture gives us the words Jesus used, while theology draws conclusions by comparing those words.

Jesus' promise establishes that the criminal would be with Him in Paradise. It does not, by itself, define Paradise as Abraham's bosom.

This distinction does not weaken Jesus' promise or diminish the comfort in Luke 16. It keeps us from claiming that a passage says more than it does. For a broader look at what Scripture says about death and the afterlife, we must compare each passage carefully, then hold our conclusions to the words God actually gave us.

Was the Criminal Jewish, and Were Only Jews in Paradise?

The Gospels do not identify the criminal who asked Jesus for mercy as Jewish or Gentile. They also do not say that only Jews were in Paradise. We must answer from what Scripture reveals, not from details we wish it had supplied.

The Gospels Do Not Name the Criminal’s Ethnicity

Luke calls the two men criminals and records the conversation between them and Jesus (Luke 23:32-43). Matthew and Mark call them robbers, while John simply says two others were crucified with Jesus (Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; John 19:18). None of these accounts gives their names, birthplace, or ethnicity.

The word translated "robbers" does not prove that they were Jewish rebels. That is an interpretation some readers attach to the term, but the Gospel writers never identify them that way. We should not turn a possibility into a Biblical fact.

So, was the repentant criminal Jewish? We do not know. Jesus' promise tells us that he would be with Him in Paradise, but it does not disclose the man's ethnic identity.

God’s Mercy Was Not Limited to Ethnic Israel

Scripture gives us clear examples of God welcoming and showing mercy to people outside Israel. Ruth was a Moabite who declared, "Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God" (Ruth 1:16). Naaman was a Syrian commander whom Jesus described as a foreigner, yet God healed him when he obeyed the word given through Elisha (2 Kings 5:15; Luke 4:27).

Cornelius was a Gentile Roman centurion. When Peter preached to him and his household, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and they were baptized (Acts 10). Peter then declared that God shows no partiality and accepts those who fear Him and do what is right in every nation. We see this truth again in Jesus' promise to gather Jewish and Gentile believers into one flock.

These examples do not tell us the criminal's ethnicity or give us a complete map of Paradise. They do show that God's mercy was never confined to ethnic Israel. We cannot say that only Jews were in Paradise. We can say Jesus promised the repentant criminal that he would be with Him, and we can trust the God who welcomes all who turn to Him.

Does the Cross Promise Set Aside New Testament Baptism?

Jesus' promise to the criminal does not cancel the New Testament command to be baptized. The two events belong to different moments: the criminal died before Jesus rose, before He gave the Great Commission, and before the church began preaching the Gospel at Pentecost. We must honor Jesus' mercy to that man without using his exceptional case to dismiss what Jesus later commanded.

The Criminal Died Before the Great Commission

The repentant criminal spoke with Jesus while they were both on the cross (Luke 23:39-43). He died before the resurrection and before Jesus sent His disciples to make disciples and baptize them (Matthew 28:19). The New Testament does not say this man refused baptism or rejected a command that had already been given to him. It records Jesus' personal promise to a dying man who turned to Him in faith.

That timing matters. We cannot use the criminal's last-minute mercy as proof that baptism is unimportant for people who hear the Gospel after Jesus' resurrection. Jesus gave His followers commands for the church, and the book of Acts shows the apostles preaching and baptizing after those commands were given.

Acts Shows the Church’s Response to the Gospel

At Pentecost, Peter told his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and he connected that response with receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Those who received the word were baptized. We see the same apostolic practice in Samaria and Ephesus, where people were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:1-6). For the Pentecost setting and Peter's call, see the meaning of the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Apostolic Oneness Pentecostals teach that Jesus is the Father revealed in the Son, and that water baptism in Jesus' name is essential. We should represent that position fairly. Yet the dispute about whether the criminal was saved does not turn on claims about Jesus' identity alone. The chronology is plain: he died before the post-resurrection commission and before the apostolic preaching recorded in Acts. The question of how Christians should obey those later commands must be answered from the teaching given to the church.

A Unique Promise Does Not Erase the Command

As independent, Spirit-filled Pentecostals, we believe Jesus saves, and we believe His followers must obey His Gospel. The criminal received a direct promise from Jesus in an extraordinary circumstance. That promise is not an instruction to disregard baptism, nor does Luke say the man was baptized. We should neither add facts to the account nor stretch it beyond what it teaches.

For believers who hear the Gospel after the resurrection, Acts gives us the apostles' response: repentance, baptism in Jesus' name, and the promise of the Holy Spirit. Jesus' mercy to the criminal remains true, and His commands to the church remain true.

Was the Criminal the First Born-Again Christian, or an Example of Mercy?

The criminal on the cross is sometimes called the first born-again Christian, but Scripture never gives him that title. Luke tells us what he said and what Jesus promised. We must not add a label the passage does not use, especially when the timing of the cross and the beginning of the church matter.

Luke Shows Repentance and Mercy, Not a Title

The criminal admitted that his punishment was deserved, declared Jesus innocent, and asked to be remembered in His kingdom. Jesus answered, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:39-43). That promise is clear. Luke does not say the man was "born again," call him a Christian, or tell us whether he had been baptized.

We can recognize the man's appeal as an expression of faith in Jesus without claiming Luke describes his experience using the language Jesus later used with Nicodemus. In John 3:3, Jesus teaches that a person must be born again to see the kingdom of God. But John does not identify the criminal as the first person to experience the new birth. Calling him the first born-again Christian is an interpretation, not a Biblical title. For more on what it means to be born again, we must consider the whole teaching of Scripture, not assign a label to a man Luke leaves unnamed.

The Cross Was Before Pentecost, but the Label Still Goes Too Far

The criminal spoke with Jesus before His death and resurrection. Pentecost came later, when the Holy Spirit was poured out and Peter preached the risen Jesus. The record in Acts 2:1-41 shows the church's public response to the Gospel after Jesus' resurrection. Peter called his hearers to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38).

This sequence matters, but we should not force the criminal entirely onto one side of a covenant line as if Luke explained his status that way. Jesus had not yet risen, and Pentecost had not yet come. At the same time, John 3 records Jesus teaching about the new birth before the cross. Scripture does not give us enough detail to claim exactly when the criminal was born again, or to call him the first member of the post-resurrection church.

As independent, Spirit-filled Pentecostals, we believe Jesus showed His authority and mercy when He promised Paradise to this dying man. We also believe living believers must obey the Gospel taught by Jesus and preached by the apostles. The criminal's promise is an extraordinary act of mercy, not permission to set aside the commands given to the church.

Conclusion

Jesus promised the repentant criminal that he would be with Him in Paradise. The Greek word paradeisos appears three times in the New Testament, while Luke 16 describes Lazarus at Abraham's bosom without explicitly saying that this is another name for Paradise. Scripture also does not tell us whether the criminal was Jewish or Gentile, or whether his promise belonged to the Old Covenant or the New.

As independent, Spirit-filled Pentecostals, we believe this was an exceptional promise of Jesus' mercy, not a complete teaching on baptism. We hold His words to the criminal alongside the apostles' teaching on baptism, including the New Testament's teaching about baptism and the Holy Spirit. Read each passage in context, and let Scripture say what it says without adding what it leaves unstated.