by
Damien F. Mackey
“And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the Cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them by the Cross”.
Colossians 2:13-15
One of the great contributions that Pope Benedict XVI has made in his book Jesus of Nazareth. Part Two: “Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection”, is, I believe, in his clear differentiation between the type of Messiah that the majority of the Jews were anticipating, and in the actual type of Messiah that they got in Jesus the Christ.
Even amongst the Apostles, one of whom was a Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15), some at least were sword-bearing. And this included Simon Peter himself, who hacked off the ear of the high priest’s slave (John 18:10) in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Was Judas the betrayer, himself, a Sicarii (dagger bearer, Iscariot = Sicarii), as well as being a thief?
It was a self-serving type of Messiahship that most were desiring, one to rid themselves of the hated pagan occupiers, and perhaps to restore the theocratic world of King David and Solomon (the Lions of Judah), which most would have regarded as a halçyon golden age for Israel.
But this One who now claimed to be the Son of God, this Jesus of Nazareth, came with neither sword nor earthly army. And he was far more inclined to criticize the Jewish leaders than he was the pagans. Admittedly, the crowds flocked to him because of his personal magnetism and his miracle working. But his doctrine was radically different from that of the Jewish leaders. He proclaimed the Beatitudes, peace and love, and offering no resistance, and service and loving one’s enemies. God the Father he revealed to be a God of otherness.
Simon Peter himself, who had become convinced that Jesus was indeed the One who was to come, and who was in awe at the incident of the Transfiguration, still tried to manoeuvre his Lord away from this talk of death on a Cross. Later he drew the sword in defence of the Lord, who of course needed no defending.
God the Father would promptly send Jesus, at his bidding, “more than twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:53).
But He was like a lamb led to the slaughter, when crucified.
Milton Terry has written, regarding the Book of Revelation’s emphasis on Jesus’s crucifixion (as in 1:7), a “lamb”, “slain”, that there is a certain irony in this imagery: “The great trouble with Judaism was that it looked for a mighty lion; and was scandalized to behold, instead, a little lamb” (cf. Luke 24:21, 25-27; John 6:15; 19:15). [Biblical Apologetics, p. 323].
And finally, even after the Resurrection, at the Ascension, the Apostles were still asking him if he were going to “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). They still had not properly understood Him.
Needed now was the Holy Spirit, to enlighten them inwardly, so that they might become other Christs.
Given this mentality, it is not really surprising that the crowd, egged on by the priests and the scribes, would have clamoured for Barabbas rather than for Jesus.
Barabbas
We might be tempted to think of this Barabbas as a dirty witless oaf, somewhat as portrayed, for instance, in Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ. But he was probably not like that at all. He was, as was Jesus, a leader who apparently drew people through personal magnetism. So he would have been somewhat charismatic.
He, though, was a revolutionary (lestes) against the occupying power, and so was just what the people were wanting. Whilst Barabbas was indeed popular with the masses he may not have been so much so with the Temple aristocracy, who likely considered him to be rather too brutal and lawless for their liking.
But that was not going to stop them from inciting the crowd to call for Barabbas over Jesus.
Ironically, Greek versions give his name as ‘Jesus Barabbas’, which mean ‘Jesus son of the father’*; a name most fitting to the real Savior. And it is quite common for writers to proceed from this to make the outlandish suggestion even that Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same person.
Anyway, if ever there were a populist type of Messiah, then this Barabbas was the epitome of it. And, given, that Barabbas did represent some sort of threat to the occupying power, whereas it was obvious to Pontius Pilate that Jesus of Nazareth did not, it is rather mystifying that Pilate would have let him go?
[*Abba has been found as a personal name in a 1st-century burial at Giv'at ja-Mivtar, and Abba also appears as a personal name frequently in the Gemara section of the Talmud, dating from AD 200–400. These findings support "Barabbas" being used to indicate the son of a person named Abba or Abbas].
So, who was Barabbas?
Where did He come from?
Where did He go?
These three questions are asked at:
where the writer then summarises the little that we know of Barabbas in the Gospels:
[Barabbas] was a robber (John's account), a notable prisoner (Matthew's account), someone who had (with others who were also imprisoned) made an insurrection/sedition and committed murder in the insurrection (Mark's and Luke's accounts). So, this man was a true brigand and a captain of them. His name appears to be taken from "bar abba" meaning "son of the father" (although some have suggested "bar rabbi" meaning "son of the teacher." Supposedly, he participated in the 'insurrection', - what "insurrection"? The "insurrection" wherein fanatically 'religious' Jews sought to overthrow Herod's Roman supported 'secular' governance - in an unsuccessful attempt to re-establish the ancient 'theocratic' form of governance as was instituted by David' (after the Lord rebuked the 'anointed' king Saul and replaced him with David?”
The Church Fathers it seems, according to this source, were unable to add very much to this:
I scanned through the early church writers to see if there were any interesting legends about him. I mostly came up empty. Tertullian describes him as “the most abandoned criminal” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 42). Cyril of Alexandria describes him as “a notorious robber” and “a dangerous and brutal criminal, [who was] not free from blood-guiltiness” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, at John 18:40). Augustine calls him “the robber,” “the murderer,” and “the destroyer [of life]” (Augustine, Tractate 116 on John’s Gospel, at John 19:1). Even Faustus (whom Augustine opposed) called him “the notorious robber” (Faustus quoted in Augustine’s Reply to Faustus, Book 14, Section 1). Chrysostom provides a characteristically colorful description:
“For which was right? To let go the acknowledged criminal, or Him about whose guilt there was a question? For, if in the case of acknowledged offenders it was fit there should be a liberation, much more in those of whom there was a doubt. For surely this man did not seem to them worse than acknowledged murderers. For on this account, it is not merely said they had a robber; but one noted, that is, who was infamous in wickedness, who had perpetrated countless murders”.
- Chrysostom, Homily 86 on Matthew, Section 2, at Matthew 27:11-12
On the whole, though, the early church basically leaves Barabbas alone. A couple (Origen and Rabanius) describe him as figuring the Devil, while Pseudo-Jerome goes so far as to associate him with the scapegoat which was freed. I’m told the “Gospel According to the Hebrews” is an apocryphal work that takes the “son of the teacher” interpretation as opposed to “son of the father,” but generally the apocryphal works also pretty much leave him alone or simply parrot the canonical accounts.
Gill provides similar comments, and adds: “The Ethiopic version adds, “the prince”, or “chief of robbers, and all knew him”; and the Arabic, instead of a “prisoner”, reads, a “thief”, as he was”.
….
No comments:
Post a Comment