Did Jesus forgive the thief on the cross?

[Guest]

One of the most beautiful parts of the crucifixion was when the thief also being crucified asked Jesus not to forget him and Jesus said that day they would be together in Paradise. Does that mean the thief successfully repented and Jesus forgave his sins? 

[Fether]

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Luke 23:42-43

Christ will forgive us immediately after we sin. But forgiveness only means we are able to approach Christ and repent, it does not mean we are clean. God does not give freebies for sins. The thief will still need to repent and fully accept the gospel in the spirit world. 

[james12]

Of course Joseph Smith commented on this scripture and said that the term "paradise" should be "spirit world". But I have also felt that another interpretation might have some merit. Appearently some early versions of the New Testament (Curetonian, Codex Vaticanus) have a comma or pause mark after the word "today" rendering the verse as follows, "Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise." This implies that the theif might not be with Christ that very day in paradise but will at some future time. Since the theif had previously asked the Lord to remember him when he, Jesus, had entered into his kingdom it makes sense to me that the promise was more substantial then a statement about entering into the Spirit World. Every last person will enter the world of spirits. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by james12

[Guest]

Yes, He did.

[Guest MormonGator]

I agree @Zarahemla, I've always LOVED that passage in the New Testament. He did forgive the second thief, and it's a beautiful story.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

One of the most beautiful parts of the crucifixion was when the thief also being crucified asked Jesus not to forget him and Jesus said that day they would be together in Paradise. Does that mean the thief successfully repented and Jesus forgave his sins? 

I'm wondering what benefit would come from answering this. From the adamant, "Yes", to the skeptical "Paradise means the spirit world, and could have simply meant the thief would have the opportunity to accept truth and repent there", what difference would it really make if we knew? What we DO know is that Jesus WILL forgive repentant sinners. What we DO know is that Jesus cannot save people IN their sins (but only FROM them). None of those things change depending on how one reads Jesus's statement to the thief.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm wondering what benefit would come from answering this.

I just thought it was a beautiful moment. Christ was suffering on the cross and said those touching words to the thief to calm him.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

I just thought it was a beautiful moment. Christ was suffering on the cross and said those touching words to the thief to calm him.

Between that and Him forgiving the woman caught in adultery, those are to moments here His compassion really shines through. Inspiring and very touching. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Between that and Him forgiving the woman caught in adultery, those are to moments here His compassion really shines through. Inspiring and very touching. 

To be clear, Jesus did not "forgive" the woman taken in adultery, at least not that I can tell. He refused to condemn her. That is because his purpose on the earth was to save men and women, not condemn them. Nevertheless, the woman would indeed be condemned if she did not repent, which is why, after telling her that he did not condemn her, Christ told her to "sin no more".

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

To be clear, Jesus did not "forgive" the woman taken in adultery, at least not that I can tell. He refused to condemn her. That is because his purpose on the earth was to save men and women, not condemn them. Nevertheless, the woman would indeed be condemned if she did not repent, which is why, after telling her that he did not condemn her, Christ told her to "sin no more".

Of course. It was still a wonderful moment of compassion on HIs part. 

[Mike]

 

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

To be clear, Jesus did not "forgive" the woman taken in adultery, at least not that I can tell. He refused to condemn her. That is because his purpose on the earth was to save men and women, not condemn them. Nevertheless, the woman would indeed be condemned if she did not repent, which is why, after telling her that he did not condemn her, Christ told her to "sin no more".

Not sure I can see a useful difference between Jesus refusing to condemn me and forgiving me because if He condemned me and told me to sin no more I wouldn't be any better off. If He forgave me and told me to sin no more I would be better off and of course need desperately to not commit the sin again. So it seems to me that not condemning me and forgiving me are practically the same thing. Maybe I'm overlooking something. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Not sure I can see a useful difference between Jesus refusing to condemn me and forgiving me because if He condemned me and told me to sin no more I wouldn't be any better off. If He forgave me and told me to sin no more I would be better off and of course need desperately to not commit the sin again. So it seems to me that not condemning me and forgiving me are practically the same thing. Maybe I'm overlooking something. 

Not sure. They seem functionally similar. But if Jesus doesn't condemn you (which he doesn't, you or me, until the judgment), that seems to me to be a sign that he is granting us a space for repentance -- which if we fail to do, we will stand condemned before him. If Jesus forgives us, then our repentance is complete, and we stand sinless before him.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not sure. They seem functionally similar. But if Jesus doesn't condemn you (which he doesn't, you or me, until the judgment), that seems to me to be a sign that he is granting us a space for repentance -- which if we fail to do, we will stand condemned before him. If Jesus forgives us, then our repentance is complete, and we stand sinless before him.

Just wondering aloud if to the original writer (of the scripture) condemn and forgive were more or less synonymous? I suspect that the whole point of reporting the event was for you and me to read the verses and draw the conclusion (among others I suppose) that through Jesus Christ we have hope and that our determination to change by forsaking our sins is crucial. 

[wenglund]

Can someone please explain why they interpret "remember me" to mean "forgive me"?

For what it is worth,  I understand the thief to essentially be asking of Jesus: "when you pass on to the other side, please don't leave me hanging tortuously here in mortality indefinitely."

And, the Savior mercifully informed the thief that both their torture would soon end, and they would pass to the other side that day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 28, 2017 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I just thought it was a beautiful moment. Christ was suffering on the cross and said those touching words to the thief to calm him.

It would be a beautiful moment whether the question is answered or not though.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

Not sure I can see a useful difference between Jesus refusing to condemn me and forgiving me because if He condemned me and told me to sin no more I wouldn't be any better off. If He forgave me and told me to sin no more I would be better off and of course need desperately to not commit the sin again. So it seems to me that not condemning me and forgiving me are practically the same thing. Maybe I'm overlooking something. 

The useful difference is that Christ CANNOT save someone in their sins. The missing point is the humility/repentance of the woman. Forgiveness implies clean, and therefore saved. Which she cannot be made clean without repentance.

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, Mike said:

Just wondering aloud if to the original writer (of the scripture) condemn and forgive were more or less synonymous? I suspect that the whole point of reporting the event was for you and me to read the verses and draw the conclusion (among others I suppose) that through Jesus Christ we have hope and that our determination to change by forsaking our sins is crucial. 

The only problem I see with this is those using the semantics of it to justify sin. Otherwise it probably isn't that important. But as many seem to use semantics and the like to justify sin, pointing out the clear meaning can matter, methinks.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Between that and Him forgiving the woman caught in adultery, those are to moments here His compassion really shines through. Inspiring and very touching. 

As @Vort pointed out, He didn't necessarily forgive her. But the rest of what you say is true here. The compassion of the Savior is His allowing us to repent.

To be clear semantically, per the other conversation, Jesus did, from a certain point of view, forgive her per the temporal law. This was, really, the point of the story, afterall. The men were asking Christ about the law of stoning someone and Christ, contextually, forgave her of that. But that doesn't equate to forgiveness from eternal judgment for sin without repentance. But He certainly, as an example of perfect compassion, was WILLING to forgive her eternally either way, just as He is willing to forgive us if we repent of our sins.

[Mike]

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The only problem I see with this is those using the semantics of it to justify sin. Otherwise it probably isn't that important. But as many seem to use semantics and the like to justify sin, pointing out the clear meaning can matter, methinks.

Help me understand because I don't follow how one could justify sin by thinking that Jesus had forgiven the woman. Help me see what you see. Not to argue--merely to state where I'm at so that you can help me get to where I ought to be: Jesus telling her (after all those who were about to condemn her were gone) that he did not condemn her she would (in my mind) have cause to rejoice, and with the admonition to sin no more she would understand that repeating her sin(s) could put her right back in the same dire situation from which she had just been rescued.  If Jesus were to have said that her sins were forgiven followed by telling her to sin no more, then (in my mind) she would have cause to rejoice because there would be no case against her, and she would understand that sinning again could put her right back in the same dire situation. From this point of (my) reasoning I'm unable to find justification for sinning. 

Post Script: I just went back and read your remarks to @MormonGator's comment. I think I see what you mean. The woman had not had an opportunity to truly repent yet until after Jesus had rescued her from death (by stoning). Is that part of what you mean? 

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Mike

[Blackmarch]

On 4/27/2017 at 11:57 PM, Zarahemla said:

One of the most beautiful parts of the crucifixion was when the thief also being crucified asked Jesus not to forget him and Jesus said that day they would be together in Paradise. Does that mean the thief successfully repented and Jesus forgave his sins? 

Jesus Christ has already forgiven all those who will forsake their sins. Whether or not the thief on the cross was truly repentant (i point out there is no reason to think that the thief wasn't) at that moment, it seems that Christ knew that he would be in the near future.