In the Shoes of Barabbas
September 9th, 2009All four gospels record the story of Jesus being crucified instead of Barabbas (Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:18-25, John 18:39-40). Can you imagine what it would be like to be in Barabbas’ shoes? As he waited in his cell in the company of other insurrectionists and murders, what went through his mind? Guilt? Shame? Remorse? Did he feel justified for what he had done? Whatever he felt, it was not going to change his situation. We may never know what it is like to physically wait on death row, but spiritually we can know what it is like to be in the shoes of Barabbas because we all are either in his shoes or have been before.
Barabbas was a condemned criminal. His wait in prison was probably tense, anxiously awaiting to be led to crucifixion every time a guard came near. He was a murderer and fought against the Romans. He stood condemned to death by both Jewish and Roman laws. Likewise, we are under a similar fate. We have all sinned (Romans 3:23) and have earned the wages of death for our sins (Romans 6:23). We stand condemned as sinners. On our own, we have no hope of changing our fate. We can never do anything that will remove our guilt of sin.
Barabbas’ place was taken by Jesus. It must have been surprising when the time finally came to be led out of his cell, but to be brought before Pilate and a crowd of Jews instead of being crucified. As he heard Pilate explain the proposal to the crowd a small glimmer of hope may have entered his mind only to be dashed to pieces when he sees Jesus. How could the crowd ever pick him over this innocent miracle worker Pilate was trying to save? The crowds response must have left Barabbas incredulous. He, the murder, would go free while and innocent man suffered. Likewise, it is hard for us to grasp the reality that God sent His Son to die for us (cf. John 3:16) and that Jesus took our place willingly. Furthermore, this was done while were weak ungodly sinners and enemies of God (Romans 5:6-10). We deserve to die, but an innocent man is offering to take our place.
Barabbas’ sentence was paid by Jesus. Justice was done; the punishment for his sins was carried out, it was just paid by Jesus instead of Barabbas. Likewise, punishment has to be carried out for our sins. If we act through faith and obey God’s will Jesus’ death will take the place of our own (cf. Romans 3:21-25). In this way, God’s mercy and justice can both be satisfied (cf. Romans 3:26, 5:9-11). Obedience to God involves dying to our sins, being baptized with Christ, and living a new life according to God’s will (Romans 6:1-4, 17-18).
Did Barabbas join that processional and see Jesus placed upon that rough cross? Did he hear the thudding of the hammer against nails that should have been going into his wrists? Did he change his life and live accordingly to the second chance he had been given? We cannot know these things. More important is the question we need to ask ourselves; what are we going to do with the chance given to us?
Erynn said:
Excellent. Very good article!
Roland said:
It is very clear that you Don’t know who either “Jesus” or “Barabbas” were.
In short, they were one and the same man , -so it was written in the original Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) but that His ‘name’ was removed or omitted from the Latin translation (around 390 A.D.) of the same text and most of the subsequent translation thereafter and is generally referred to as “Barabbas” only. Moreover, “Barabbas” is not a surname (any more so than is “Christ”) it is what He was called… it is an Aramaic appellation, -the meaning of which is Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as ‘in the Father of us all’ or ‘God’)… therefore, His name was “Jesus” (called) (the) “Son of God”. No mystery there.
What Is a ‘mystery’ is why the deafening silence re. “Jesus the Son of God”? Why do we have the ‘Good News’ story in place of the obfuscated Jewish history? Might there be something that the ‘Church’ does not want revealed, -dazzling us with wondrous ‘miracles’ and pathos instead?
Why Did ‘the Jews’ choose [Jesus] Barabbas instead of “Jesus Christ”?
The answer to the above question requires a knowledge and understanding of the bloody ‘insurrection’ that was raging throughout the land… (not a very pretty picture and contrary to the rather placid ‘Good News’ story), -a ‘bone of contention’ that rankled the hearts and mind of (Jewish) men in the very foundation of Their ‘government’… would there be a ‘theocracy’ or a ’secular governance’?
The history of the Jews informs us of the days of the formation of nationhood and a “king” (see Samuel). Briefly, Saul, of the tribe or family of Benjamin, was the first ‘anointed’ (blessed) king of the Jews. Eventually, king Saul fell out of favor with ‘the Lord’ (I’ll get back to Saul later), -he was replaced by the ‘anointment’ of David, of the tribe of Judah.
David was succeeded by his son, Solomon.
Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam… BUT, ten tribes revolted away from Rehoboam (and the established ‘theocracy’) and established a parallel ’secular’ government, -headed by Jeroboam.
THAT schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries… into the days of Herod’s Roman installed and supported ’secular’ government.
Enter the ‘descendant of David’ and Jewish ‘messiah’… riding into Jerusalem on an ass, -come to claim his (rightful) inheritance…
Herod the Great would have none of it… one ‘messiah’ after another rose up in indignation and ‘righteousness’ of their cause (as ‘promised by God’)… each were brutally crucified or were slain in the ‘insurrection’… until, at last, the wealthy and educated Jews scattered themselves abroad, Jerusalem was razed to the ground (save the western or ‘wailing wall’), and the Jewish ‘nation’ ceased to exist (around 70 A.D.).
Back to king Saul… stripped of his kingly authority… shamed and dishonored he “fell upon his own sword” (ostensibly to avoid being captured by his enemies)… thus, by this abominable act brought everlasting shame and dishonor upon is tribe, family and heirs… -not to mention certain denial of any of his family from ascending the throne over the Jews ever again.
What, pray-tell, do you honestly think young Saul of Tarsus -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint ‘Paul’, -the actual creator and founder of ‘Christianity’, thought and did about the ‘descendant of David’ and Jewish ‘messiah’?
It wasn’t a pretty picture…
Please know that, at the time of the infamous “crucifixion”, no Jew had ever known, saw or even heard of “Jesus Christ”… “Christ” was literally ‘born’ out of the epiphany of Saul of Tarsus (and his cohorts -Mark and Luke… at least ten years later.
What better way to destroy Saul’s life-long arch-enemy and nemesis than to wipe his name and true mission from the consciousness of the people than what ‘Paul’ did?
How so very easy is it to re-write history… especially after one destroys all opposition…
As for me, I trust the God in me… not in the words of a ‘Book’.
Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.
Erynn said:
Roland,
Do you have any sources to cite?
Jeremy Sprouse said:
Roland,
What you have given as facts, are not facts at all but mere theories based upon speculation. Some might even call them fantasies.
It is true that there are some textual variants of Matthew 27:16 and 17 that have Barabbas identified as Jesus although these variants have been disputed as early as Origen. It does not really matter, however, because “Jesus” was a common name during this time. The name “Jesus” is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew name “Joshua” (a name given to several individuals in the Old Testament). To say all people named Jesus are the same person is the same as saying everyone named John Smith is the same person. It is quite a stretch. It is clear from the text of Matthew and the other gospels that Pilate is offering a choice between two different people. Note even with Jesus inserted it still sounds like two people: “So when the people gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? [Jesus] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” (Matthew 27:17). One Jesus is identified by Barabbas the other is identified by being called the Christ (which is the Greek term for Messiah and is used interchangeably (cf. John 1:41). In addition, although Barabbas literally means “son of the father,” its common usage and the meaning was “son of the teacher.” Since the gospels clearly make a distinction between Barabbas and the Christ, and no other source talks of Barabbas, there is no reason to conclude that Barabbas and the Christ are one and the same.
As to the division of the 10 tribes, the facts are inconsistent with your theories. First of all, the tribe of Benjamin–from which both King Saul and Saul of Tarsus came–stayed with the tribe of Judah and the line of David (cf. 1 Kings 12:21-24). The two tribes can hardly be counted as arch-enemies or nemeses. Secondly, the division between the 10 northern tribes and the two southern tribes was removed through the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (cf. Ezekiel 37:15-23). There is no reason to think Saul’s persecution of Christians was because he was against the physical line of David. Instead, it was as Paul said: a result of living strictly according to the Pharisees’ teachings that led him to persecute Christians (Acts 26:2-11). Third, Jesus had no intention of ruling as a king physically (cf. John 6:15, 18:36). With these facts in mind, little of what you said makes any sense at all.