THE RELEASE OF BARABBAS

This well-known story actually occurs in all four Gospel accounts (Matthew 27:17-26; Mark 15:11-15; Luke 23:18-25; and John 18:39-40), although they vary somewhat in the details, as you will see below. There are a number of questions that arise regarding this narrative, and so I will arrange my comments according to those different queries.

What do we know about the custom of releasing a prisoner during the Passover?

Many liberal scholars are quite dubious concerning the historical possibility of such a custom simply because they can find no outside confirmation of it. But this is a weak argument from absence of information and by no means invalidates the biblical account. And there are others who do see reason to consider it a historically plausible account.

“The custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover is not attested elsewhere. There is nothing inherently unlikely about it. Prisoners were on occasion released elsewhere on special occasions. But this custom is shrouded in mystery.” (Morris)

Mann echoes this opinion: “There is abundant evidence for discretionary amnesty being granted by local Roman governors...There is therefore nothing inherently improbable in Pilate's actions.”

Raymond Brown admits the above but adds that “the evidence of an amnesty for serious crimes at an annual feast is lacking.”

Chavel was the first to cite a passage in the Jewish Mishnah (Pesahim 8:6) as a possible parallel to this custom. Brown says that this passage “speaks of the need of slaughtering a paschal lamb for one whom 'they promised to release from prison (on Passover Eve)'...But obviously this passage is capable of explanations that have nothing to do with privilegium paschale.” Similarly, it is Borchert's judgment that “the sources and connections in such arguments are very tenuous.”

Confusing this whole situation is the fact that the four biblical accounts do not quite agree as to this custom. Thus, Matthew and Mark state that this took place “at the feast,” probably referring to the Passover, but not certainly so. And they ascribe the custom to “the governor” (Mark) or more specifically to “he” meaning Pilate (Matthew). By contrast, John definitely states that these releases always occurred at the time of Passover, and he quotes Pilate as saying to the Jews, “You have a custom, etc.”

I am sure that there are theories totally harmonizing these somewhat disparate versions for those who wish to try. However, Albright and Mann provide a good summary on this subject: “Apart altogether from the agreement of three evangelists on this point [i.e. that there was such a custom], it is necessary to emphasize once again how meager and fragmentary is our information of the operation of Roman administration in provincial jurisdictions.”

What was Pilate's reason for wanting Jesus released?

We have to read between the lines here in order to search out a motive for what looks like an uncharacteristically kind act on the part of Pilate, considering what historical records have to say regarding his cruel reign over Judea. He was so bad that Rome had to remove him from his post after a few years.

Nevertheless, there are still those commentators who defend his motives as being only the most noble. For example, here is what Geldenhuys has to say: “Pilate was so convinced of the innocence of the accused and cherished such a secret fear of Him that he did not yet completely yield to his wavering inclination for the sake of his own convenience and safety to give way to the clamour to have Jesus crucified [Luke 23:20-21].” But, of course, we know that eventually he did give way to the pressure.

Another motive is suggested by a detail that only Matthew includes, namely the fact that Pilate's wife was warned in a dream for her husband to have nothing to do with “that righteous man” Jesus (Matt. 27:19).” As France says, “We need not assume that the message arrived at this precise moment in the trial. Matthew locates it more generally 'while Pilate was hearing the case,' and it may be that the message had reached him earlier and therefore explains his attempt to avoid having to make a judicial decision by invoking the amnesty.” In other words, Pilate was either afraid that Jesus was who He said He was or he was afraid of his wife's reaction if he condemned Jesus to death. It has even been postulated that Pilate's wife was a follower of Jesus.

Other commentators on this subject feel that Pilate had strictly politically motivated reasons for his actions, although their specific explanations differ somewhat from one another, as shown below:

“Pilate was evidently trying to get the best of both worlds. If his plan succeeded he would be able to release Jesus, as he plainly wished to do. But he would also technically be convicting Jesus, and by refraining from an acquittal he doubtless hoped to please the high priestly party. Notice that in framing his question Pilate refers to Jesus as 'the King of the Jews'. The use of this full title might be expected to sway the people in Jesus' favor. If that was the reason for it it failed.” (Morris)

“It may be that Pilate thought he could gain popularity points with the Jewish people and at the same time score a blow against manipulative Jewish leadership. Whatever he may have thought, it is obvious that he had not judged the situation correctly.” (Borchert)

“It is easy to dismiss the procurator's action as weak, but he was faced with a choice between a mob incited to an angry demonstration and a group of people hoping to negotiate a judicial amnesty.” (Mann)

What do we know about Barabbas?

Let us start first with his name. Some ancient texts of Matthew 27:16-17 call him “Jesus Barabbas” and others just “Barabbas.” Bruce Metzger, reporting the United Bible Society's discussions on this subject says, “A majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the original text of Matthew had the double name in both verses and that ['Jesus'] was deliberately suppressed in most witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] for reverential considerations. In view of the relatively slender support for ['Jesus'], however, it was deemed fitting to enclose the word in square brackets.”

If Jesus Barabbas was indeed his full name, then it would provide another possible motive for Pilate wanting the crowd to release him rather than Jesus Christ, as France explains. “Pilate, under the impression that Jesus of Nazareth was also a popular leader, decides to try offering them a different Jesus. It is even possible that he had heard shouts in favor of Jesus (Barabbas) and assumed that it was the other Jesus they were shouting for.”

From Mark's Gospel we learn that Barabbas was held prisoner with men who were insurrectionists and who had committed murder. Luke takes it a step further by making it clear that Barabbas himself had committed murder. Matthew says that he was a notable prisoner. John probably infers the same thing, according to Morris, who suggests that the 'use of the article ['the'] by John may point to the same thing, 'the well-known Barabbas.'”

Considering that John's Gospel is known for its frequent use of irony, I think that Morris is correct in seeing something else in John's characterization of Barabbas as a lestes (“robber”). The only other place in John's writings where that word appears is in Jesus' teaching on the Good Shepherd (John 10:1,8) where it is used to describe the false teachers who are enemies of the sheep and the Shepherd. “The Jews at this critical moment chose a robber in preference to the Shepherd.”

Let us return to the issue of his name Translated from the Hebrew, 'Barabbas' means 'son of the father' or 'son of the teacher.' So in another touch of irony, the crowd chooses to save him instead of the One who was the true teacher and the only Son of the Father. It is sad when God's people turn to political leaders for salvation while turning their backs on Jesus and His teachings. This leads into our next question.

Why did the Jerusalem crowd turn against Jesus?

Again, we are faced with possible hints in the texts but no one definitive answer to the question. Here are some possibilities:

Morris: “It may be that some, at any rate from among the crowd had been hoping for the release of Barabbas, even before Jesus was arrested. It is very likely that his supporters had planned to take advantage of the custom.” This explanation would be even more likely in view of Brown's comment that “the fact that two revolutionary bandits were executed together with Jesus suggests that the fate of those involved in the recent insurrection (Mark xv7; Luke xxiii19) had been decided. The frenzied interest in having Barabbas released would be more explicable if he were on his way to death.”

Mann agrees with this above scenario: “It seems likely that the crowd came to demonstrate support for Barabbas and not to be spectators of Jesus' trial...It is impossible to know the composition of the crowd, and a comparison between the enthusiasm of Palm Sunday and the venom of the trial scene [which is often made in Easter sermons] is misplaced.”

Both Matthew (27:20) and Mark (15:11) note that the reason the crowd acted that way was that the Jewish leaders and temple police (according to Matthew) or chief priests (according to Mark) stirred them up.

Luke's account is a little more ambiguous. However, the actions are attributed to “those who were gathered together,” seemingly referring back to the chief priest and scribes only, not a random crowd (see Luke 23:10-11).

The respective words used in the Gospel narratives to describe the groups of people who greeted his arrival in Jerusalem with rejoicing and those who clambered for his death also indicate the desire to distinguish these two groups from one another:

Gospel         Those who greeted Jesus                     Those who wanted him killed

Matthew      “crowd” (ochlos)                                  “crowd” (ochlos)

Mark           “they” (apostles and disciples)              “crowd” (ochlos)

Luke           “multitude (plathos) of disciples”         “priests, leaders, and people” (laos)

John            “crowd” (ochlos)                                   “Jews”

Note that only Matthew utilizes the same word for both groups, and he is careful to explain that they were stirred up to do so by the Jewish leaders. The other accounts purposely employ different terms to distinguish the composition of the groups present at these two occasions.

Some Christians get quite upset when all the parallel accounts in the New Testament do not say exactly the same thing, feeling that it casts doubts on the veracity of the whole event. But Albright and Mann summarize the whole situation well: “The recollected traditions preserved in all three synoptic evangelists, as well as in John, must therefore be seen against a confused scene of mounting disorder, in which no single person present could hope to preserve all details.”