Crucifixion of the Repentant Thief Dismas - Questions

[Jaypeeto4]

Hi all,
We all know the account of the repentant or “good” Thief, Saint Dismas,
who was crucified next to Jesus on Calvary.
Dismas said that “we are suffering the just penalty for our crimes.”

My question is, is that correct?
He obviously made the statement in deep humility,
but the Law of Moses
did NOT prescribe the death penalty or anything nearly so severe, for thieves.
The Thief had to return the stolen goods and/or become an indentured servant (“slave”)
for a few years to the person he stole from. There was no death penalty for stealing.

So, is it possible that Dismas was more than a mere “thief” who stole things or money?
Is it possible that our translation, “Thief,” is not accurate enough?
Was he, perhaps, more of a violent BANDIT, who not only robbed from people,
but beat them nearly to death and left them for dead, too?? (Like in the parable
of the Good Samaritan??). Cuz Theft was not a Death Penalty offense at all
under the Law.

 

[Heuchler]

Well the good thief may have been referring more to the Roman law and how death was percribed. It may also have been more of a broad statement essentially that we have done wrong and deserve a punishment, he has done nothing and deserves no punishment.

 

[po18guy]

“Thief” is only one of many scripture translations. “Malefactor”, “criminal” and “outlaw” have also been used in some translations. In Spanish translations, “malefactor”, “evil doer” or “criminal” is often used. In German, the word used translates to “robber”, “evil doer” or “Culprit”.

 

[patrick457]

Hi all,
We all know the account of the repentant or “good” Thief, Saint Dismas,
who was crucified next to Jesus on Calvary.
Dismas said that “we are suffering the just penalty for our crimes.”

My question is, is that correct?
He obviously made the statement in deep humility,
but the Law of Moses
did NOT prescribe the death penalty or anything nearly so severe, for thieves.
The Thief had to return the stolen goods and/or become an indentured servant (“slave”)
for a few years to the person he stole from. There was no death penalty for stealing.

So, is it possible that Dismas was more than a mere “thief” who stole things or money?
Is it possible that our translation, “Thief,” is not accurate enough?
Was he, perhaps, more of a violent BANDIT, who not only robbed from people,
but beat them nearly to death and left them for dead, too?? (Like in the parable
of the Good Samaritan??). Cuz Theft was not a Death Penalty offense at all
under the Law.

Not under Jewish law, but Roman law. Crucifixion is after all a Roman method of execution. Otherwise, yes: rendering the Greek lestes as something like ‘bandit’ or ‘marauder’ is perhaps indeed more accurate than ‘thief’, which might imply petty thievery or pickpocketing. That was not an offense punishable by death, but something like armed robbery or even zealotry (armed rebellion) certainly was.

For the record, Jesus Barabbas was also a lestes.

 

[po18guy]

Not under Jewish law, but Roman law. Crucifixion is after all a Roman method of execution. Otherwise, yes: rendering the Greek lestes as something like ‘bandit’ or ‘marauder’ is perhaps indeed more accurate than ‘thief’, which might imply petty thievery or pickpocketing. That was not an offense punishable by death, but something like armed robbery or even zealotry (armed rebellion) certainly was.

For the record, Jesus Barabbas was also a lestes.

Jesus Bar abbas (literally “Jesus, son of the father”) was released, while the Son of man was crucified. Amazing.

 

[po18guy]

One description of Dismas in German bibles is the use of the older word “Schaecher” to describe him. That translates roughly to “cutthroat”, which clearly indicates serious crimes.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Hi all,
We all know the account of the repentant or “good” Thief, Saint Dismas,
who was crucified next to Jesus on Calvary.
Dismas said that “we are suffering the just penalty for our crimes.”

My question is, is that correct?
He obviously made the statement in deep humility,
but the Law of Moses
did NOT prescribe the death penalty or anything nearly so severe, for thieves.
The Thief had to return the stolen goods and/or become an indentured servant (“slave”)
for a few years to the person he stole from. There was no death penalty for stealing.

So, is it possible that Dismas was more than a mere “thief” who stole things or money?
Is it possible that our translation, “Thief,” is not accurate enough?
Was he, perhaps, more of a violent BANDIT, who not only robbed from people,
but beat them nearly to death and left them for dead, too?? (Like in the parable
of the Good Samaritan??). Cuz Theft was not a Death Penalty offense at all
under the Law.

Jaypeeto:

You might want to look at the translations/Interpretations offered by your Brothers & Sisters in Christ. The Greek word is more accurately translated as “Robber” (Think in terms of the “Robbers” the “Certain man” fell among on the road to Jericho). The word Luther used, “Cutthroat”, might very well have been the most accurate of all… Our English Bibles do us a disservice by calling this man a “Thief”, except for the fact that, as so many Christians writers like to say, his final act was to “steal heaven”.

Remember, every time that man killed, raped, beat robed or threatened someone, he not only sinned against that person, he sinned against God, himself and his community. Only God, who was hanging next to him on the Cross, had the authority to forgive those terrible sins. and, and Jesus said so many times, that’s what he came for - As is also said in Isaiah
“Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.”
**Isaiah 1:18 - RSV
Isaiah 1:16-19 Bible Gateway
**As Jesus said in John 3 -
*“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
**that whoever believes in him should not perish
*but have eternal life.
*For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world,
**but that the world might be saved through him.” *
John 3:16-17 - RSV
John 3:1-17 Bible Gateway
I’m sorry, but there’s something wrong with my computer (the thing is only 8 years old! It’s called OUTDATED…), and or the Internet connection (Just because I replaced the Modem doesn’t mean it’s going to work properly). I know there are other scriptures I could quote, but I want to be able to actually post this thing before the sun comes up.
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[patrick457]

Jesus Bar abbas (literally “Jesus, son of the father”) was released, while the Son of man was crucified. Amazing.

I need to mention at this point that a few authors take that symbolism too far and thus assume that ‘Jesus Barabbas’ per se did not exist, that it originally referred to Jesus Himself (i.e. the people actually asked for Jesus to be released but Pilate went ahead and had Him killed anyway) but was later turned into a separate person entirely by the Evangelists due to anti-Semitic elements within the early Church which wanted to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews for Christ’s death? (In case one is wondering, 'Abba is a perfectly fine, not-too-unusual name as per contemporary and later sources.)

Another interpretation posits that ‘Barabbas’ came from bar-rabban ‘son of [the] teacher’ (i.e. rabbi). A marginal note found in a 10th century uncial manuscript (Codex Vaticanus 354) and a number of minuscules states:

In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called Jesus; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, ‘Whom do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ;’ for apparently the paternal name of the robber was Barabbas, which is interpreted, ‘son of the teacher’.

 

[po18guy]

I need to mention at this point that a few authors take that symbolism too far and thus assume that ‘Jesus Barabbas’ per se did not exist, that it originally referred to Jesus Himself (i.e. the people actually asked for Jesus to be released but Pilate went ahead and had Him killed anyway) but was later turned into a separate person entirely by the Evangelists due to anti-Semitic elements within the early Church which wanted to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews for Christ’s death? (In case one is wondering, 'Abba is a perfectly fine, not-too-unusual name as per contemporary and later sources.)

Another interpretation posits that ‘Barabbas’ came from bar-rabban ‘son of [the] teacher’ (i.e. rabbi). A marginal note found in a 10th century uncial manuscript (Codex Vaticanus 354) and a number of minuscules states:

In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called Jesus; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, ‘Whom do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ;’ for apparently the paternal name of the robber was Barabbas, which is interpreted, ‘son of the teacher’.

Agreed that we must place some limitation upon our search for symbolism in scripture. Even so, I see the irony of the symbolism of Barabbas as “son of the teacher” as agreeing with ** Isaiah 54:13** (“All your sons shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the prosperity of your sons.”), Jeremiah 31:33 (“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”), as well as Matthew 23:10 (“Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ”).

As to which people bears the responsibility for the crucifixion, Jews and Gentiles alike were involved - without their mutual cooperation, it would not have, indeed could not have occurred. This universality of guilt directly indicates the universal nature of Christ’s atonement.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Thanks, everybody.
I kinda figured that “thief” wasn’t an accurate translation,
and that Dismas had to be guilty of sins that were much more
cruel, violent, bloody, even deadly, and repeatedly probably.

The reason is, is that the pre-Repentant Matthew the Tax Collector
was a thief and a fraud: the tax collectors took way above what the Romans
required, and way above what their fair cut should be, thus ripping off their
people in an amazing display of treasonous fraud. And Zacchaeus, the repentant
fraudster/thief told Jesus he was willing to restore four-fold what he had defrauded
from his fellow man. And Jesus accepted this.

So I figured Dismas was something waaaaaay more than a mere
fraudster or thief. People just didn’t get executed for THAT (at least under
Jewish Law).

Love,
Jaypeeto4

 

[patrick457]

Thanks, everybody.
I kinda figured that “thief” wasn’t an accurate translation,
and that Dismas had to be guilty of sins that were much more
cruel, violent, bloody, even deadly, and repeatedly probably.

The reason is, is that the pre-Repentant Matthew the Tax Collector
was a thief and a fraud: the tax collectors took way above what the Romans
required, and way above what their fair cut should be, thus ripping off their
people in an amazing display of treasonous fraud. And Zacchaeus, the repentant
fraudster/thief told Jesus he was willing to restore four-fold what he had defrauded
from his fellow man. And Jesus accepted this.

So I figured Dismas was something waaaaaay more than a mere
fraudster or thief. People just didn’t get executed for THAT (at least under
Jewish Law).

Love,
Jaypeeto4

Just to explain the whole tax system:

The Romans found that ruling indirectly and remotely, that is, using the loyal native rulers and leaders as proxies and considering them the responsible officials for a given area to be an effective form of government. It mostly contented itself with the collection of tribute and the maintenance of stable borders; for the most part it even left these tasks at the hands of these men.

In the Galilee, Antipas was pretty much independent; Rome had the final say on crucial matters but he was more or less free to run the kingdom as he wished. He fulfilled the main conditions by keeping order, paying tribute and cooperating with Rome, and in return Rome gave him protection against implied threat of retaliation against invaders. The troops and the taxes were his, district governors were his appointees, and local rulers served at his pleasure. Judaea, meanwhile, was put under the rule of a Roman prefect since AD 6, but the prefect mostly limited himself by visiting places such as Jerusalem during pilgrimage festivals to prevent potential unrest: for the rest of the year he and most of his troops stayed in the capital of Caesarea Maritima with other gentiles, away from the eyes of Jews. Day-to-day control he has left to the High Priest in Jerusalem, who had informal councillors and a small formal council.

Every province in the Empire were required to pay up a hefty sum of cash in exchange for Roman protection. Usually the Romans expected the local ruler to pay it to them, and it would then be up to the ruler to recoup the loss from his subjects in any way they could. So the ruler would squeeze his aristocrats, who would then squeeze their clients the local landlords, and so on down to the peasant. Of course those who collected tribute or charged duty would often add a cut for themselves.

According to estimates, an average farmer at that time contributed 20-35% of his income in taxes and tithes, if not much higher. Aside from land taxes, tolls, duties and rents one had to pay, there is also the Temple tax (a couple of days’ wages) and tithes to the local priests, if one is feeling devout. It was an economy where the wealthy become richer and the peasants become poorer.

It would seem that Matthew was actually more of a customs officer rather than a collector of tribute, charging duty for items ordinary peasants used. The towns and villages around the Sea of the Galilee were less prosperous than cosmopolitan cities like Caesarea, and both exports and imports were more basic than the luxury items that passed in urban ports. The Galilee exported a lot of foodstuff, but had to import manufactured goods. Toll-gatherers in rural areas probably earned less than those in large cities, but they would have still been substantially richer than most Galilean farmers and fishermen.