Barabbas
September 3, 2010Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.
— Mark 15:6-11(NIV)
Lots of speculative energy has been expended wondering who Barabbas was, and what became of him after he was released. But the fact is that we have no reason to think that he did anything other than remain a violent political rebel.
What’s often missed in the Barabbas story is the supreme irony behind his deliverance from death. Barabbas was a Zealot, a party that rejected the Romans, and kept revolt simmering throughout the time of the Roman occupation. On several occasions the revolt boiled up into open, armed resistance. Barabbas was part of a small occurrence. Later, in 66 AD and again in 133 AD, there were full scale wars, both times resulting in Rome conquering and destroying Jerusalem (in 70 AD and 135 AD).
But who was working to free this rebel? The chief priests, the very leaders of those who collaborated with Rome! The top priestly positions were appointed by the Roman governor at this time—they weren’t descended from Aaron. Only men very loyal to Rome were even considered. These men were terrified that Rome would “take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48). That is, their personal place, and the nominal status Judea enjoyed as a “nation” with some degree of self-rule. The biggest threat to them was the Zealots, whose revolts invited Rome to exercise tighter direct control. Yet it was these very men who worked mightily to free a convicted insurrectionist!
This is a very telling measure of their desperation to be rid of Jesus. In Jesus they saw an even greater threat. And of course, they were right. The entire religious structure of the chief priests had no relevance for the disciples of Jesus Christ. The disciples themselves didn’t understand this yet, but these shrewd, powerful political operators saw it.
There is a personal lesson we can draw from this. We might think of Barabbas as representing the rebellion in us all. Sometimes we get our priorities upside down and, like the chief priests, we strive to let loose that lawlessness. But what does it cost? It condemns the Son of God. (see Hebrews 6:4-7) We never want to be in that position!
RSS
“Lots of speculative energy has been expended wondering who Barabbas was… What’s often missed in the Barabbas story is…”
It doesn’t appear to me that you have not ‘expended’ “lots of speculative energy wondering who Barabbas was”… I have.
“Jesus Barabbas”, written in the the original Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) but that His name [Jesus] was removed or omitted from the Latin translation (around 384 c.e.) of the same text and most of the subsequent translations thereafter, -leaving us (later people) with only ‘Barabbas’ instead.
‘Barabbas’ is not a proper name or surname per se’ (any more than is “Christ”). It is an Aramaic appellation, -the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in ‘the Father of us all’ or, ‘God’, if you will), it is what He was called.
You say, “But the fact is that we have no reason to think that he did anything other than remain a violent political rebel.” I say, The fact is we have no reason to think (acquiesce and/or believe) that He was “a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist” -without evidence, much less proof.
Respectfully,
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.
Roland – As you suggest, the given name of the individual identified as Barabbas may have been Jesus (Iesus in the Greek). This was a fairly common name at the time, being the Greek form of the Hebrew name Yehowshua (rendered Joshua in English translations). For example, another individual with this name is mentioned in Colossians 4:11.
I’m not sure if you are suggesting that Jesus Barabbas is the same individual as Jesus of Nazareth. Even a casual reading of Matt 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 18 reveals that there are clearly two distinct individuals, one of whom is released and the other executed. The title “father’s son” (the meaning of Barabbas as you note) would certainly be appropriate for Jesus of Nazareth, however the record does not include any indication that this appellation was ever used of him. Whether Barabbas was a given name, a family name, or a nomme de guerre adopted by the man himself, we don’t know.
As to proof of what the man was, we have the records of people who were there (Matthew, John, and Peter) and two other writers who knew the people who were there (Mark and Luke). This may not constitute proof in your mind, but it certainly qualifies as evidence: