SON OF THE FATHER
“With this, he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, ‘I find no basis for a charge against Him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of Passover. Do you want me to release “the king of the Jews”? They shouted back, ‘No, not Him! Give us Barabbas!’ Now Barabbas had taken part in an uprising.” John 18:38b-40.
John’s description of Pilate’s verdict is very sketchy at this point. The chief priests had not specified their charge against Jesus. Their demand was, ‘Sentence Jesus to death; He’s guilty!’ Pilate responded, ‘Guilty of what?’ They replied, ‘He’s guilty because we say so!’ What kind of reply was that?
It was up to Pilate, it seems, to determine why the religious rulers insisted that He was guilty. The only thing Rome was interested in was insurrection. Was Jesus a rabble-rouser, trying to drum up enough support to get rid of the Romans? Annas had grilled Him about His following and His teaching in the hopes that He would let slip any plan He had of an uprising. He failed to get Him to incriminate Himself, so he sent Him to Caiaphas.
John recorded nothing of the religious trial before the Sanhedrin except the verdict, “Guilty as charged!” But not guilty of treason; guilty of blasphemy, according to the other gospels. A verdict of guilty of blasphemy would not cut it with Pilate. That was not his fight. So. they kept mum about the charge and hoped that Jesus would give Pilate the evidence he needed to condemn Him to death.
Pilate must have had some clue to Jesus’ claim, or else he followed that route because it was the one thing that Roman authority would squash, and quickly. Despite Pilate’s verdict, “Not guilty,” after questioning Jesus, the Jewish leaders still demanded His death. Pilate had one last loophole – the Jewish custom of releasing a prisoner on death row at Passover. Surely, if he chose the worst awaiting-execution convict, they would let Jesus go?
Pilate was in for a shock. So deep was their suspicion and hatred of Jesus that they would choose a convicted murderer and insurrectionist and allow him to roam the streets again, rather than a benevolent and upright rabbi who challenged their understanding of the Scriptures and exposed their greedy and selfish hearts.
Who was this Barabbas anyway? In a Jewish name, “bar” indicated the connection of the son with his father, just as does “son” in an English name, e.g., Johnson or Morrison, or “Mac” or “Mc” in a Scottish name, e.g., McGregor. Bartimaeus, the blind man, was the son of Timaeus; Barabbas was the son of his father. What sort of a name was that! Does his name, ironically, stand for all the sons of their fathers in whose place Jesus was crucified.
Did Barabbas’ mother give him a nondescript name like “son of his father’ because he did not have a father? Was she a single mother who tried to shield her son’s illegitimacy? Is that why he resorted to violence and murder — because he was an angry, fatherless boy? Just a thought!
According to Luke, Jesus was accused of being an insurrectionist. “Then the whole assembly rose and led Him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse Him saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.’…Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man.’ But they insisted, ‘He stirs up the people all over Judea by His teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.'” Luke 23:2; 4-5 NIV.
Pilate was really in a dilemma; Barabbas was a convicted insurrectionist and they wanted him released. Jesus was not guilty of revolutionary activity, but they wanted Him crucified! What was he to do to satisfy justice, the Jews and his conscience?
Watch this space!
Acknowledgement
Scripture taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.