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