But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up
the parable of the thief should be examined more deeply than the simple idea of it being a bandit who steals riches. Clearly the thief Jesus is the only just figure in a world that seems lawful and orderly but is in truth utterly corrupt ("the night"). The treasure that the thief has stolen is not literal, but symbolic.
What if the thief has stolen spiritual power? There is an archetypal precedent for such a theory. Prometheus, after all, stole the fire from the gods to give it to humanity. So thievery and sorcery have a long but obscured relationship. Jesus was despised as a sorcerer by Celsus.
I think that the episode of the two thieves crucified with Jesus was introduced in the gospel to esorcize the previous idea of Jesus as thief (in the Prometheus's interpretation above). Something as: the true thieves are them, not Jesus.
In Matthew the figure of the thief is always despised. Even in the Parable above. The robbed is the goodman of the house, a positive figure. The reader has to be as him, not as the thief. He has to not support the thief in the his action, even if for Matthew the thief is just.. ...the Son of Man himself!
But what if Jesus is the thief? In that case, the robbed is a priori the prince of this world and the his allies, Satan or the demiurge. The master of the house becomes a negative figure. Always.
I think that there is sufficient evidence to see embarrassment in action about the parable of the thief, by the Judaizers.