"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42).

This is a remarkable request from one of the criminals, for Matthew 27:44 tells us that both criminals at first reviled Jesus. During the hours they hung on the cross, it appears that one of them experienced a change of heart.

Both seem to have understood Jesus' claim, for even the one who kept mocking Him called Him "the Christ" (Luke 23:39). But the other went from mocking Him, to defending Him (23:40–41), to finally hoping for salvation in Him (23:42).

One criminal kept up his defiance even as he was dying. The other, recognizing his hopeless condition, saw in Jesus something more than human. Perhaps he saw the peace in Jesus' face. Perhaps, through the mockery of the religious leaders and crowds below, he overheard Jesus' words, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Perhaps he clung to the possibility expressed even in the mocking words, "He saved others; let him save himself" (Luke 23:35). I can imagine this criminal thinking, "Yes! He saved others! Perhaps He can save me too!" To a man whose life was ebbing away, what else was there to cling to but this one hope?

What greater answer to and encouragement of this hope could there be than Jesus' reply: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43)? Every word of Jesus' response bursts with hope:

• "Truly" — Most assuredly! You can stake your life on it! With absolute certainty!
• "Today" — Not in some abstract age. Not in the distant future. Not even tomorrow. This very day!
• "You will be with me" — Not alone. Not with other criminals. With Jesus, the Christ, "the King of the Jews."
• "In paradise" — Not in hell. Not in the grave. Not in some undefined place. In the place where every hope is fulfilled. Paradise!

I can imagine that as this criminal's strength, breath, and life were ebbing away, his spirit was suddenly filled with tremendous expectation — the life-giving energy of a new connection to Christ, and a hope that lets go of all self-reliance and leans wholly on Jesus' promise.

Friends, today let us lean once again on the mighty arm of Jesus, who is able to save us completely from all our sins, fears, and failures, and to carry us in Himself to a sure hope, a most excellent destiny, and everlasting rejoicing in the Lord!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The penitent thief's words contain a remarkable confession of faith. He acknowledged his own guilt — "we are receiving the due reward of our deeds" — and Jesus' innocence — "this man has done nothing wrong" (23:41). And he believed that the dying man beside him was a King who would come into His kingdom. At the very moment when Jesus' own disciples had fled and His claims seemed most refuted, a condemned criminal saw the truth.

The thief's story has comforted believers for centuries because it shows salvation by grace in its purest form. He could not be baptized, join a church, perform good works, or make restitution. He simply turned to Jesus in faith and received a promise. Jesus' answer also reveals the believer's hope at death: "today... with me." Paul expresses the same confidence — "to depart and be with Christ... is far better" (Philippians 1:23) — and it is a hope that awaits its final fulfillment in the resurrection of the body (1 Corinthians 15:52). The comment's joyful unpacking of each word of Jesus' reply is exactly the right response to such grace.

But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them (Luke 24:11).

The women tell the apostles that Jesus has risen from the dead, but the apostles think that it is all nonsense. I find this remarkable.

These were not ordinary men, who heard the women's witness. These were not even some of the hundreds of disciples that followed Him. These were the chosen eleven apostles (Judas Iscariot being excluded). Jesus told them no less than three times that He would be crucified and on the third day rise again (cf. Luke 9:21–22; Mark 9:30–32; Luke 18:31–33). Yet, here they refuse to believe the testimony of these women, who simply validated what Jesus predicted would happen.

These apostles would not believe until they themselves physically saw Jesus. And truly these apostles would not believe until Jesus opened their minds to understand that the Scriptures were being fulfilled in Him:

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:44–45).

I've made this point in a previous post, but it bears repeating. It is arrogance to think that anyone can be saved apart from God's enablement. If the apostles, who walked with Jesus for three years and who saw all His miracles and heard His words first-hand, did not believe apart from Jesus opening their minds to understand, what makes us think that we are better than they?

No, my friends. Unless God opens our minds and gives us "ears to hear," we too would disbelieve. It is by the Lord's decree that we have a kind of hearing that also believes. Paul wrote in Romans 10 that the Jews heard the Gospel but still did not believe. The reason for this was not that the Jews did not hear the Gospel. They heard, but they did not have the kind of hearing that led to faith. Where did such hearing come from? Paul declared that such hearing faith could only come by the decree of God:

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word [Gk rhema, spoken decree or command] of God (Romans 10:17).

The linked GotQuestions article has this note about the difference between the Greek words logos and rhema, which are both translated "Word" in the Bible:

There are two primary Greek words that describe Scripture which are translated “word” in the New Testament. The first, logos, refers principally to the total inspired Word of God and to Jesus, who is the living Word. Logos is found in John 1:1; Luke 8:11; Philippians 2:16; Hebrews 4:12; and other verses. The second Greek word translated “word” is rhema, which refers to the spoken word. Rhema literally means an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically). Examples are found in Luke 1:38; 3:2; 5:5; and Acts 11:16. (Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/rhema-word.html#ixzz3IrJoL0rK)

Notice that rhema is used in Romans 10:17. Paul was not saying that people believe simply by hearing God's written Word or by hearing the message of Christ. If he wanted to say this, logos would have been a better term to use. No, I believe Paul deliberately used rhema, which emphasizes God's spoken decree, to suggest that God must first decree, ordain, enable the hearing for the hearing to become faith. So, also Jesus taught, "Unless a man is born again (by the Spirit), he cannot see [perceive] the kingdom of God” (cf. John 3:3). In fact, no one can accept or understand spiritual truth, such as the Gospel, apart from the Spirit's enablement (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14).

Friends, let us not think too highly of ourselves, imagining that our "free will" choice to believe in Jesus provides the great divide between our eternal salvation and the eternal condemnation of unbelievers. No, it is not our free willing but God's calling and election, which has saved us. Christ died for all, but God has only enabled faith in some. Rather than question God's wisdom in saving us in this way, and rather than trying to invent something to give humanity greater "dignity", let us simply praise Him for enabling us to choose Him; which is to say, we did not choose Him, but He chose us.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Luke’s account makes the apostles’ initial unbelief unmistakable. The women return with news of the empty tomb and the angelic announcement, yet their words seem incredible to those who hear them (Luke 24:9–11). This is not a picture of disciples eagerly manufacturing the outcome they already expect. Grief and incomprehension remain powerful even among those who knew Jesus. The narrative subsequently shows recognition developing through encounters, the interpretation of Scripture, and the risen Lord’s own presence. Understanding is given, but it is given in relation to testimony and explanation.

The statement that Jesus opens their minds in Luke 24:45 therefore deserves its full setting. He directs attention to the Law, Prophets, and Psalms and explains his suffering, resurrection, and the proclamation of repentance for forgiveness. Illumination does not render the scriptural message unnecessary. It enables the disciples to understand its relation to him. This supports prayerful dependence in teaching without suggesting that careful explanation is a merely human substitute for divine action. Luke presents the two together.

The original’s further argument from rhema needs correction at the level of method. The linked GotQuestions article is the identifiable source of the quoted paragraph, but its brief definitions do not establish that Romans 10:17 means a secret elective decree. Logos can refer to spoken proclamation, and rhema can refer to a message being proclaimed. Paul uses rhema in Romans 10:8 for the word of faith he preaches. First Peter 1:23–25 also brings the vocabulary into close relation with the enduring word announced as good news. A theological position should not rest on a rigid distinction the usage does not sustain.

There is a further logical issue. Saying that faith comes through hearing the message does not mean that every person who hears will believe. The presence of resistant hearers therefore does not disprove proclamation’s role. Romans 10 emphasizes both the need for messengers and the tragedy of disobedience. The Greek text of Romans 10:17 contains hearing and the word of Christ, with a God/Christ textual variant; it does not supply a separate term meaning an inward hearing faculty created by decree. That interpretation requires a broader argument than a lexical gloss.

The devotional conclusion can remain strong after these qualifications. Salvation is not an occasion for intellectual or moral boasting, and Christian traditions that disagree about election can still confess the necessity of grace. We should pray that God opens understanding, proclaim Christ clearly, and avoid contempt for people whose questions remain unresolved. The apostles’ story encourages humility because those commissioned to witness had themselves needed correction. It also encourages patient teaching because the risen Jesus did not abandon them to confusion. A faithful expansion of this text should imitate that combination: confidence in Christ, dependence on God, and a willingness to explain rather than allowing an uncertain word study to carry more weight than the passage gives it.

[j] But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.” And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves (Luke 23:34).

One of the most familiar quotations from Jesus on the cross is the one where He asks the Father to forgive the perpetrators of His crucifixion. As beloved as this quotation is, it must be noted that it is absent from several early and important manuscripts of the Greek New Testament (thus the endnote [j] above reads "Some early mss do not contain But Jesus was saying...doing").

In fact, the strongest evidence for its existence may be an early attempt at a harmony of the Gospels by Tatian in his seminal work The Diatessaron (c. A.D. 170 - see quote here in LII-6). Tatian was known to have been a disciple of Justin Martyr, an early church father. Tatian's harmony was widely used in the Syrian churches; however, among the Greeks, he was increasingly seen as a heretic, Encratite (ascetic), and Gnostic. The work itself provides an amazing early witness to the gospels. However, as we do not have the original of The Diatessaron, it is highly likely that scribes and editors over the years modified the work to more closely match the four canonical gospels (cf. collection of scholarship on the study of The Diatessaron here). This, of course, makes this work somewhat suspect as a witness to the gospels.

It is noteworthy that one of the greatest Greek scholars of our time, Bruce Metzger, has called into serious question the inclusion of this text in the original text of Luke. He, nevertheless, treats it as an early addition to the gospel:

23:34 omit verse 34a [[‘ο δε Ιησους ελεγεν, Πατερ αφες αυτοις ου γαρ οιδασιν τι ποιουσιν.]] {A} The absence of these words from early and diverse witnesses as P75 B D* W Θ ita, d syrs copsa, bo mss al is most impressive and can scarcely be explained as a deliberate excision by copyists who, considering the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews, could not allow it to appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered. At the same time, the logion, though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained, within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Second Edition A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Fourth Revised Edition, p. 154; bold emphasis ours).

According to the UBS, the double brackets surrounding the Greek text imply that the

enclosed passages, which are usually rather extensive, are known not to be part of the original text, but an addition at a very early stage of the tradition. They are included with the text in this way because of their antiquity and the position they have traditionally enjoyed in the church (e.g., Jn 7.53–8.11) (UBS’ Greek New Testament Fourth Revised Edition, p. 2; bold emphasis ours).

So, at least some of the best Greek scholarship seems opposed to seeing the words of Jesus as being part of the original text of Luke's Gospel.

At the same time, the arguments in favor of its inclusion are also persuasive, based on the evidence of the church fathers, on the basis of arguments of why the text may have been excluded for theological reasons, as well as the text's strong internal consistency with Lukan style and content (Read a supportive technical article here; see also a more abbreviated support by a pastor here).

Thus, there is some cause to question the authenticity of this saying by Jesus on the cross. Let it suffice to warn that no major doctrine (e.g. a doctrine on forgiveness) should be based on this quotation alone.

Friends, I include this somewhat technical comment on a portion of Scripture to highlight the importance of the discipline of textual criticism with respect to the Scriptures. While we believe that the original text (aka autographa) of the Bible was completely inerrant, we don't make such absolute claims about the copies we have, and certainly not about any translation (e.g. NIV, KJV, ESV, etc.) from these extant copies. The fact that we have so many and such ancient copies makes the text of our current versions/translations highly reliable, but not perfect.

Therefore, when we encounter a footnote in our Bibles indicating that a verse or portion of text is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts, we should take note and be careful not to base any major teaching on it. While we do not need to ignore it altogether, for there was enough of a witness to make it into our Bibles, we probably ought not to preach a sermon with such a text as our central text.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The original comment introduces a real textual question while helpfully distinguishing belief in inspired Scripture from a claim that every surviving copy is identical. Luke 23:34a, the prayer for forgiveness, is absent from several early and important witnesses but present in others. The evidence cannot accurately be summarized as unanimous absence from all the oldest manuscripts. The NET Bible’s textual note lists witnesses on both sides and explains why a decision is difficult. It also distinguishes the possibility that the saying preserves an authentic word of Jesus from the separate question of whether it stood in Luke’s original text.

That distinction is central to responsible discussion. Textual criticism asks which wording best explains the surviving evidence. It considers the age and relationships of witnesses, the distribution of readings, and plausible explanations for how a reading might have arisen or disappeared. An early manuscript is valuable evidence, but no single age ranking mechanically resolves every variant. Likewise, a reading’s theological attractiveness cannot decide its originality. A sentence may express a thoroughly Christian truth without that fact proving it belonged at a particular location in a particular book.

The saying’s fit with Luke’s themes is therefore relevant but not conclusive. Jesus teaches love for enemies in Luke 6, and Stephen prays for his persecutors in Acts 7. Such connections can support the coherence of the disputed sentence with Luke’s work; they can also suggest why a scribe might have found an added saying appropriate. The same observation can enter competing explanations. This is one reason an honest footnote is more valuable than a confident claim that the evidence is too obvious for serious disagreement. Readers can acknowledge uncertainty at this point without assuming that all of Luke is uncertain.

The appeal to Tatian raises a related historical caution. A harmony combines material from several Gospels, and the form of an ancient work known through later witnesses requires careful reconstruction. Its evidence should neither be dismissed merely because it survives indirectly nor treated as though we possess an untouched autograph from its original composition. The original reflection rightly notices the transmission problem. It should be assessed alongside the actual witness history rather than through judgments about Tatian’s later reputation alone. An author’s theological errors do not automatically make every historical datum associated with that author worthless.

The application to forgiveness also needs balance. No major doctrine should depend entirely upon a disputed phrase when a broad range of relevant passages is available. But declining to make this verse carry the whole doctrine is different from declaring that it has nothing to contribute. Luke 6:27–36, Luke 17:3–4, Acts 7:60, and the resurrection commission in Luke 24:46–47 require us to consider prayer for enemies, repentance, mercy, and proclaimed forgiveness together. Whether a reader judges this saying original or an early authentic tradition, its use should be accompanied by an explanation of the textual issue rather than silence about it.

This can become an opportunity for mature confidence. A teacher need not hide manuscript variation to protect the congregation, and a reader need not panic when a translation prints brackets. We can explain what is disputed, what evidence is available, and which conclusions remain well grounded across the witnesses. Preaching from such a passage is a matter for transparent judgment rather than an automatic universal ban; the teaching should not depend on concealing its status. Faithfulness here means neither overstating certainty nor exaggerating doubt, but treating the biblical text and the people who hear it with the same care for truth.

They accused Him of subverting the nation, opposing payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming to be Messiah, a king (a reference to Luke 23:2). They insisted He stirred up the people all over Judea by His teaching, starting in Galilee and coming all the way there (a reference to Luke 23:5). Pilate then called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said that they had brought Him as one inciting the people to rebellion, and that having examined Him he found no basis for the charges (a reference to Luke 23:13–14).

Notice the charge was inciting rebellion against Caesar. This was the basis on which the crucifixion could proceed. Yet the rulers could not prove it. I believe this is why Jesus repeatedly told those He healed not to spread the news, why He went out to desert areas away from population centers, and why He frequently withdrew to the mountains alone. He did everything He could to avoid even the appearance of leading a rebellion, giving no just cause for His crucifixion.

Then Luke 24:45 says He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. Would the disciples have understood the gospel if He had not? No. Can we understand and believe if God does not open our minds? The Bible says the person without the Spirit does not accept the things of God's Spirit, considering them foolishness, and cannot understand them, because they are discerned only through the Spirit (a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 2:14).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The connection between the secrecy motif and the political charge is a plausible explanation and fits the evidence better than most. Luke in particular is attentive to the legal dimension — he records Pilate declaring Jesus innocent three separate times, and adds Herod reaching the same conclusion. Luke seems concerned to establish for his readers that the Roman authority that executed Jesus could find no case.

The charge itself is worth noting for its inaccuracy. Jesus had been asked directly about taxes to Caesar and had answered in a way that gave no grounds for the accusation now being made — which Luke's readers, having read chapter 20, would recognize immediately.

On the second half: 1 Corinthians 2:14 is the standard text for the necessity of the Spirit's work in understanding, and Christians across traditions affirm that no one comes to genuine understanding unaided. Where they differ is on whether that illumination is given particularly to the elect or extended to all who are confronted with the gospel. The passage in Luke 24 is striking in either case for what it describes: eleven men who had heard the teaching firsthand, for years, and still needed their minds opened before it made sense.

As Luke concludes, Christ is crucified, buried, and risen. Afterward He appears to two followers discussing the news that Jesus was no longer in the tomb, uncertain what it meant.

He asks how foolish they are and how slow to believe all the prophets have spoken — did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter His glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself. As they approached their village He continued on as if going farther, but they urged Him strongly to stay, since evening was near. So He went in. At the table He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and began to give it to them — and their eyes were opened and they recognized Him, and He disappeared from their sight. They asked each other whether their hearts had not been burning within them while He talked with them on the road and opened the Scriptures. They got up at once and returned to Jerusalem, where they found the Eleven and those with them saying that the Lord had risen and appeared to Simon. Then the two told what had happened, and how He was recognized in the breaking of the bread (a paraphrase of Luke 24:25–35).

I have read through the Bible cover to cover a few times, and what becomes more pronounced each time is how pervasive God's revelation of a Messiah is throughout the Old Testament. God reveals His plan of salvation from the beginning.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Luke's arrangement of this scene rewards attention. The two travelers spend hours receiving what must be the most comprehensive exposition of Scripture ever given, and they do not recognize the teacher. Recognition comes at the table, in a gesture — taking bread, giving thanks, breaking it — and the moment it comes, He vanishes.

The order is worth noting against a common assumption that understanding produces recognition. Here the explanation comes first and does its work, but what they say afterward is that their hearts had been burning while He spoke, which they only identify in retrospect. Something was happening during the exposition that they could not name until after the recognition. Luke seems to be describing two things that belong together: Scripture opened, and the person present — neither one substituting for the other.