The two thieves

[dave-o]

We all know the account of the two criminals crucified along side Jesus, the best known being Luke's account where one was promised to be with Jesus that day in Paradise.

Luke 23:39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”

40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

But in the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark it says:

Matthew 27:44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.

Mark 15:32 [...] Even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him.

Anyone?

[JC1949]

We all know the account of the two criminals crucified along side Jesus, the best known being Luke's account where one was promised to be with Jesus that day in Paradise.


But in the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark it says:





Anyone?

Just an idea,this is the way I see it.( it does NOT mean it is the correct understanding or interpretation )
Try to imagine the Gospels like movie cameras recording the events,in this case the thieves and Jesus crucifixion,and in two you have the two thieves insulting and reviling HIM but the in the third the camera zooms in and we hear the conversation between the repentant one and Jesus and His marvellous promise of salvation.
The Holy Spirit being the Film director and not Mel Gibson!

[mattfivefour]

To my thinking, there are three possibilities, Dave.

The most likely is that the eyewitnesses to the crucifixion with whom Luke spoke to get his information heard the thief say this, while Matthew and Peter (the source for Mark's gospel) did not. Remember, Peter "followed afar off" and with the fear which had come over all of the disciples it is quite possible that only John was close to the Cross along with the women, plus Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

Another possibility is that both thieves were insulting him to begin with but after viewing the manner of His behavior on the Cross, the one thief may have repented and said what he did. I think this less likely than the first possibility.

The third possibility —and the least likely, imo—is that Matthew used a rhetorical device not uncommon in Hebrew literature called enellage, in which the number, the person, or the voice of a word is changed from what would be expected in order to create a certain effect. For example in Exodus 19, when God speaks to the Israelites through Moses, He addresses them in the plural, but when He gives them the Commandments He addresses them in the singular. This latter is an example of enellage and is done to create a sense of individual personal responsibility. As I said, I think this is the weakest of the possible explanations.

As a journalist, I believe that the first possibility is the most likely. And, in fact, the variation in witness accounts is what gives this story its ring of truth. Identical reports would raise the possibility of collusion among the witnesses. The differences in the subtle details of any account while agreeing in the major aspects is the mark of a true story.

[Carl]

A friend and I just had a discussion about the two thieves. What started ours was my comment that Christ said on the cross, "Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing". Friends comment was that Jesus was praying for the thieves. That started my research.

The Companion Study Bible says that the most likely is that there were more than two thieves crucified with Christ that day. This is based upon the order that the thieves were mentioned, and where in the crucifixion accounts they were placed. Along side does not necessarily mean adjacent to. So that two thieves next to each other could have the conversation and be next/near to Jesus, but on one side.

Matt has some good points, just remember there are no contradictions in the Bible, which prompted your question.

[dave-o]

A friend and I just had a discussion about the two thieves. What started ours was my comment that Christ said on the cross, "Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing". Friends comment was that Jesus was praying for the thieves. That started my research.

The Companion Study Bible says that the most likely is that there were more than two thieves crucified with Christ that day. This is based upon the order that the thieves were mentioned, and where in the crucifixion accounts they were placed. Along side does not necessarily mean adjacent to. So that two thieves next to each other could have the conversation and be next/near to Jesus, but on one side.

Matt has some good points, just remember there are no contradictions in the Bible, which prompted your question.

More than 3 crucified that day was one of my thoughts also but there is nothing at all in scripture to back it up so it can only be a speculative possibility. As for the 2 being on the same side, well that's not right:

Luke 23:32 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left.

I'm personally not concerned with this at all but this is one of those things that Bible detractors like to make a big deal out of and I like to have answers ready at hand.

Also I'm not surprised that it is Luke's Gospel that is different because that is also consistent with the rest of his Gospel where in several places he records details not found elsewhere, which is to be expected because (as mattfivefour pointed out) Luke is known to have interviewed who knows how many eyewitnesses in order to help compile the written testimony that bears his name.

[mikhen7]

To my thinking, there are three possibilities, Dave.

The most likely is that the eyewitnesses to the crucifixion with whom Luke spoke to get his information heard the thief say this, while Matthew and Peter (the source for Mark's gospel) did not. Remember, Peter "followed afar off" and with the fear which had come over all of the disciples it is quite possible that only John was close to the Cross along with the women, plus Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

Another possibility is that both thieves were insulting him to begin with but after viewing the manner of His behavior on the Cross, the one thief may have repented and said what he did. I think this less likely than the first possibility.

The third possibility —and the least likely, imo—is that Matthew used a rhetorical device not uncommon in Hebrew literature called enellage, in which the number, the person, or the voice of a word is changed from what would be expected in order to create a certain effect. For example in Exodus 19, when God speaks to the Israelites through Moses, He addresses them in the plural, but when He gives them the Commandments He addresses them in the singular. This latter is an example of enellage and is done to create a sense of individual personal responsibility. As I said, I think this is the weakest of the possible explanations.

As a journalist, I believe that the first possibility is the most likely. And, in fact, the variation in witness accounts is what gives this story its ring of truth. Identical reports would raise the possibility of collusion among the witnesses. The differences in the subtle details of any account while agreeing in the major aspects is the mark of a true story.

I like 1 or 2 but think it could easily been number 2

[dave-o]

I lean towards #2 in mattfivefour's explanation also. After hearing Jesus asking the Father to forgive those who were mocking/killing Him a change of heart is certainly a likely scenario.

[mikhen7]

I lean towards #2 in mattfivefour's explanation also. After hearing Jesus asking the Father to forgive those who were mocking/killing Him a change of heart is certainly a likely scenario.

Dave that is an excellent way to look at it. I do not even see a reason why #1 couldn't have occurred alongside of #2. ?? One thing rings out about the gospels, when you think of the importance of the life of Christ and how what needed to be documented so that we could be saved (Praise God-Hallelujah!!) you have to thank the Lord that He chose to include four accounts from different points of view. God's word has always spoken to mankind in differing ways because we are all at differing levels of maturity. We have what was necessary for salvation and wisdom to live a life pleasing to God. For that I am so thankful! I love that Book of Books!!!

[GlennO]

Matt said:

Remember, Peter "followed afar off" and with the fear which had come over all of the disciples it is quite possible that only John was close to the Cross along with the women, plus Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.

That put me in the moment....well said!

From Believer's Bible Commentary (BBC)


Luk 23:39-43


The Two Robbers (23:39-43)
23:39-41 We learn from the other Gospel narratives that both robbers reviled Jesus at the outset. If He was the Christ, why did He not save them all? But then one of them had a change of heart. Turning to his companion, he rebuked him for his irreverence. After all they were both suffering for crimes that they had committed. Their punishment was deserved. But this Man on the middle cross had done nothing wrong.

23:42 Turning to Jesus, the thief asked the Lord to remember him when He came back and set up His kingdom on earth. Such faith was remarkable. The dying thief believed that Jesus would rise from the dead and would eventually reign over the world.

23:43 Jesus rewarded his faith with the promise that that very day, they would be together in Paradise. Paradise is the same as the third heaven (2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:4), and means the dwelling place of God. Today—what speed! With Me—what company! In Paradise—what happiness!

Charles R. Erdman writes:
This story reveals the truth to us that salvation is conditioned upon repentance and faith. However, it contains other important messages also. It declares that salvation is independent of sacraments. The thief had never been baptized, nor had he partaken of the Lord's Supper. ... He did in fact boldly profess his faith in the presence of a hostile crowd and amid the taunts and jeers of rulers and soldiers, yet he was saved without any formal rites. It is further evident that salvation is independent of good works. ... It is also seen that there is no “sleep of the soul.” The body may sleep, but consciousness exists after death. Again it is evident that there is no “purgatory.” Out of a life of sin and shame, the penitent robber passed immediately into a state of blessedness. Again it may be remarked that salvation is not universal. There were two robbers; only one was saved. Last of all it may be noted that the very essence of the joy which lies beyond death consists in personal communion with Christ. The heart of the promise to the dying thief was this: “Thou shalt be with me.” This is our blessed assurance, that to depart is “to be with Christ” which is “very far better.”


From Jesus Christ's side one person may go to heaven and another to hell. Which side of the cross are you on?

[mikhen7]

[SIZE=3]Matt said:

That put me in the moment....well said!

From Believer's Bible Commentary (BBC)


Luk 23:39-43


The Two Robbers (23:39-43)
23:39-41 We learn from the other Gospel narratives that both robbers reviled Jesus at the outset. If He was the Christ, why did He not save them all? But then one of them had a change of heart. Turning to his companion, he rebuked him for his irreverence. After all they were both suffering for crimes that they had committed. Their punishment was deserved. But this Man on the middle cross had done nothing wrong.

23:42 Turning to Jesus, the thief asked the Lord to remember him when He came back and set up His kingdom on earth. Such faith was remarkable. The dying thief believed that Jesus would rise from the dead and would eventually reign over the world.

23:43 Jesus rewarded his faith with the promise that that very day, they would be together in Paradise. Paradise is the same as the third heaven (2Co_12:2, 2Co_12:4), and means the dwelling place of God. Today—what speed! With Me—what company! In Paradise—what happiness!

Charles R. Erdman writes:
This story reveals the truth to us that salvation is conditioned upon repentance and faith. However, it contains other important messages also. It declares that salvation is independent of sacraments. The thief had never been baptized, nor had he partaken of the Lord's Supper. ... He did in fact boldly profess his faith in the presence of a hostile crowd and amid the taunts and jeers of rulers and soldiers, yet he was saved without any formal rites. It is further evident that salvation is independent of good works. ... It is also seen that there is no “sleep of the soul.” The body may sleep, but consciousness exists after death. Again it is evident that there is no “purgatory.” Out of a life of sin and shame, the penitent robber passed immediately into a state of blessedness. Again it may be remarked that salvation is not universal. There were two robbers; only one was saved. Last of all it may be noted that the very essence of the joy which lies beyond death consists in personal communion with Christ. The heart of the promise to the dying thief was this: “Thou shalt be with me.” This is our blessed assurance, that to depart is “to be with Christ” which is “very far better.”


From Jesus Christ's side one person may go to heaven and another to hell. Which side of the cross are you on?

Mr. Bro. Erdman makes some excellent points all of them on target! Thanks for Posting that Glenn!!! There may even be a sermon in there somewhere, you think?

• 
  

God Bless

[mattfivefour]

I find often with Dr. Erdman that I must struggle to agree with the positions he finds in scripture. However, I have no such problem with his suggestion of the second thief's repentance on the Cross. As I said, I believe the first possibility to be the most likely ... on the basis of my own knowledge and experience with witnesses and also on the basis of Occam's Razor. However, a change of heart ON the cross in the face of Christ's manner there is quite possible. And rather than choose, I would accept the suggestion that Pastor Mike made, that the two possibilities are not exclusive and, thus, both could be true. Certainly I like the lessons in the second possibility, as outlined by Dr. Erdman. Mike, there is indeed a sermon there! A very powerful sermon, I would suggest, on the free and universal availability of salvation, the ease with which it can be missed, and the eternal consequences of the two.

[mcChristian]

I know this is from a bit ago...but this topic can be finished with this reminder...

Remember when Judas Iscariot and the groups of soldiers arrested Jesus?

Gospel of John says:

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. - John 18:10

Gospel of Matthew Says:

And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. - Matthew 26:51

Gospel of Luke Says:

And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. - Luke 22:50

Gospel of Mark Says:

And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. - Mark 14:47

See 3 of them say, One of them struck the servant's ears and John says Peter was the one who struck, different accounts of the same story.

[mattfivefour]

... different accounts of the same story.

Which is what gives it the stamp of truth. False witness accounts, the product of collusion, are exactly the same because they have worked out the details together; genuine witness accounts vary in details ... and even perceptions.

[BuzzardHut]

We all know the account of the two criminals crucified along side Jesus, the best known being Luke's account where one was promised to be with Jesus that day in Paradise.


But in the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark it says:

Anyone?

It proves anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit can have a change of heart and by final faith in Jesus be saved from sin.