The old covenant was still in effect until his death.
That is correct
Read up on some Hebrews. It explains how Christ was the atoning sacrifice for all sins, past, present, and future. So the argument about the thief being "under the old covenant" doesn't wash. Jesus was the covenant all along. From Genesis to Exodus.
OK. If you just want to argue then how was he the sacrifice for the thief if he HAD NOT been sacrificed. He hadn't died yet to complete the sacrifice. Lets look at a sacrifice. When a lamb was laid on the alter was the sacrifice complete? No it wasn't complete until blood was shed and the lamb was dead.
e
Read Romans 3/25.... the sins previously committed were passed over. The blood of bulls and goats never justified anyone. They only covered the people under the old one till the new one came to be.
David , Abraham, Moses.... none of these men were atoned for by anything other than the blood of Jesus. They were forgiven for what Jesus WAS GOING TO DO , JUST AS THE THIEF WAS.
