All of the Gospels tell us of the trial of Jesus of Nazareth and His crucifixtion. They also tell us of a criminal who was tried and found guilty but was ultimately freed. His name was Barabbas, he was guilty of murder and causing an insurrection, maybe the men crucified on either side of Jesus were Barabbas co-insurrectionists. Most people have heard of Barabbas, yet what most Christians might not be aware of is that in the early manuscripts (and more reliable?) of Matthew's Gospel we are told that his first name was Jesus. It likely that this is true as it is more likely that a later editor took out the name Jesus Barabbas (for pious reasons) than added it. Also the name Jesus was very common in the Second Temple period. Barabbas means Son of the Father, as Pilate asked the crowd whom shall I free, Jesus, Son of the Father from Nazareth or Jesus son of the father, the insurrectionist? I wonder if Barabbas thought it was a one horse race as he must of heard of Jesus the wonder worker and knew that many people had been healed by Jesus. Maybe he had heard the commotion on the first day of the week when Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey to shouts proclaiming Him as the Son of David. How shocked he would have been then when the crowd shouted out "free Barabbas!" Did he hear Pilate pleading for the innocent Jesus? Barabbas knew he was guilty of his crime, and Jesus was innocent. Did Barabbas know that Jesus died in His place on that first good Friday? Do you know that He stood in your place as he suffered and died and His Father poured out His wrath on Him?
God Bless You through His Son!
Stephen <><
2 comments:
Hi Bro,
A very thought provoking article. I had never heard of his name possibly being Jesus but it does throw an insightful aspect to the account.
I had read that there is a parallel drawn between Jesus and Barabbas as leaders of revolts. Mark 15:7 highlights this regarding Barabbas and i think it could be argued Jesus was regarded as a leader of an uprising in Roman terms. I wold base this on the fact that Pilate gave in to the crowds as they shouted louder fearing a revolt. If the city revolted against his Roman rule then he would face discipline before the Emperor? I am a bit hazy about this so feel free to point out if i am wrong here.
Yet, if this is accurate, we have two leaders, yet one is a guilty leader and the other the guiltless leader.
Do you think we could preach on this parallel or is there too much speculation surrounding it? I would be interested to know your thoughts as it is rich in drawing a "paradox-style sermon"?
In Christ
Hey bro, I think we could preach on it is there but we would need to be careful not to move beyond what is there. I think The King of Kings made a similar link and made Judas question if he should follow the Messiah of peace or the Messiah of revolt.It let Judas of the hook, we shouldn't do it like that. Thanks for your comments bro, we can chat about this next time we speak.
Shalom
Stephen
Post a Comment