11

Matt. 27:38,

Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Jesus was crucified during the critical feast of Passover (mistakenly called the Feast of Unleavened Bread because they are so close in time to each other). It was illegal to have anyone crucified during this feast. Jesus fulfilled prophesy but, why were the two thieves being crucified on Passover as well?

Ruminator
  • 1
  • 14
  • 74
  • 182
Linda Lawson-Bruton
  • 777
  • 3
  • 7
  • 17
  • 1
    This is a Very Good Question and one that I have thought about on many occasions. I added a scripture passage to ensure that it remains a 'hermeneutic' and not 'theological' question. I have an answer, but I would like to hear whjat the rest of the community has to say about it. – Tau Mar 31 '16 at 03:46
  • 2
    In what way do you think this could be definitively answered with an answer supported by evidence? Most readers would say that the reason why the text records this detail is that it is a fact of history, but that we cannot know why the Romans decided to do it that way. And your claim that it was illegal to crucify people during the Passover needs to be backed up with evidence. – curiousdannii Mar 31 '16 at 15:39
  • @curiousdannii There is nothing left to 'chance' of the most defining moment of God's interaction with mankind in human history-even the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus's garments was predicted(Ps. 22:18). There is a definitive reason why Jesus was crucified BETWEEN 2 thieves, but yes, the answer is not readily apparent. This is the only sign given to an unbelieving and unregenerate people(Matt. 12:40/Matt. 16:4/Luke 11:29) – Tau Mar 31 '16 at 21:12
  • @All I would ask that you would refrain from closing this question as it is my intention to post a bounty on it, when it becomes eligible. This is a great question which a broad based audience would appreciate an answer to, and a bounty may garner the kind of attention needed to answer it. Thank you! – Tau Mar 31 '16 at 22:19
  • 1
    Sorry, apparently this is obvious to others, but is "why" here meant to request a teleologic explanation of this fact (i.e. forward-looking, its place in God's plan of redemptive history, or however you think about it) or an etiologic/historic explanation (i.e. backward-looking, what transpired in 1st C. Roman legal proceedings to bring about the event here recorded)? @Tau, etc. – Susan Apr 03 '16 at 01:26
  • @Susan I am saying there is a "hermeneutic" reason, one that is supported by the text. I am not asking for a specifically 'teleologic' explanation, unless it is "hermeneutical", nor do I see a "etiologic" explanation as relevant in this instance; unless it is supported hermeneutically. – Tau Apr 03 '16 at 01:35
  • @Tau They're all hermeneutical. Does the OP want something particular to the gospels? Well unless you're a mind reader, we really should be closing this question and waiting for them to respond, rather than putting bounties on it. – curiousdannii Apr 03 '16 at 02:59
  • @curiousdannii Again-there is nothing left to chance or circumstance with the crucifixion of Christ. The question is stated simply, so that a broad-based audience can understand it. There is an answer, and it's not 'opinion based'. I'm sure there is someone out there, besides myself who has insight to this question, and perhaps has studied this question in depth to provide a solid biblically hermeneutical answer. – Tau Apr 03 '16 at 11:48
  • 1
    @Tau I agree that nothing is left to chance, but that doesn't mean that we can discern the wisdom of God in every matter. If there's such a clear answer then why haven't you written it? – curiousdannii Apr 03 '16 at 11:55
  • @curiousdannii I have my reasons....;>), and I want to compare. Besides, this is an excellent question for a large audience. – Tau Apr 03 '16 at 12:13
  • 1
  • Linda - A.) You said: *"... (mistakenly called the Feast of Unleavened Bread because they are so close in time to each other"* B.) Technically, this wasn't a mistake - because "the Day of Unleavened Bread" *had become an Idiom, and used interchangeably with "Passover" - which occurred on the same Day - Luke 22:1 Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching*;
  • – elika kohen Apr 04 '16 at 20:44
  • Absolutely. Back then, they used those terms interchangeably. I should not have said 'mistakenly' and said something more to the effect that it was an interchangeable reference to the feasts as a whole. – Linda Lawson-Bruton Apr 05 '16 at 17:54
  • @curiousdannii My question came from a preacher I heard on the radio - Aaron Budjen. I cannot find this particular sermon but, he intimated that it was illegal (according to the Sanhedrin) to persecute anyone during this feast. He also mentioned MANY other Sanhedrin laws that were broken. Then I though that, if it was illegal to crucify on this feast, what were the two thieves doing on either side EXCEPT to fulfill prophesy. One person said that, since the Romans crucified the thieves, the argument of the Sanhedrin law is null. But, I'm still not sure. – Linda Lawson-Bruton Apr 07 '16 at 00:24
  • Here is the link to Aaron Budjen's sermons where he has a list of all of the laws the Sanhedrin broke. These "laws" were Sanhedrin laws and not the law of Moses. http://www.newcovenantinstitute.net/living_god_ministries/radio_archive/trial.htm – Linda Lawson-Bruton Apr 07 '16 at 19:06
  • WHY did the chicken cross the road? When you figure that out, WHY did they crucify thieves? Was it perhaps something that they had done? – Decrypted Apr 07 '16 at 23:47
  • @LindaLawson-Bruton - I posted an answer, but tau raised a question: *Are you also asking why the crucifixion was necessary, rather than just stoning?* – elika kohen Apr 08 '16 at 02:00
  • @elikakohen: "My question came from a preacher I heard on the radio - Aaron Budjen... (according to the Sanhedrin) to persecute anyone during this feast. He also mentioned MANY other Sanhedrin laws that were broken. Then I thought that, if it was illegal to crucify on this feast, what were the two thieves doing on either side EXCEPT to fulfill prophesy." Here is the link to Aaron Budjen's sermons where he has a list of all of the laws the Sanhedrin broke. These "laws" were Sanhedrin laws and not the law of Moses. http://www.newcovenantinstitute.net/living_god_ministries/radio_archive/trial.htm – Linda Lawson-Bruton Apr 08 '16 at 16:35
  • @elikakohen - I understand why Jesus was crucified. I understand that it has been foretold and that His crucifixion, along with the two thieves on either side, were prophesized. What I do not understand is, according to SANHEDRIN laws, there is no work - especially persecution - during the Feat of Unleavened bread and Passover. I realize that prophesy mentions the two thieves and that it had to happen that way. What I don't understand is their (Sanhedrin) justification for killing the two thieves since they were not a threat to them. – Linda Lawson-Bruton Apr 12 '16 at 01:27
  • @LindaLawson-Bruton I apologize for not specifically addressing that issue, although(IMO) I think it is a separate question. Whether or not a "Sanhedrin Law" was in effect, to remove the 'leaven'(chametz) was certainly part of the celebration of the feast, and the 'cursed' were chametz. All throughout the Law evil, and the evildoer was to be removed; from one's house, place of worship, city, and country. Yes, the Romans were pagans, and a constant source of vexation for religious Jews. To take down the bodies of condemned criminals was removing "chametz". – Tau Apr 12 '16 at 11:55
  • It was illegal for Jewish people to crucify hence why he was given over to the Romans who wouldn't have been restricted by the Passover and would have still crucified. – Alderney Jun 02 '21 at 04:36