CHOOSING BARABBAS by James Kiefer 4998 Battery Lane Bethesda, MD 20814 Spring, 1990 +quot;
1
CHOOSING BARABBAS
by
James Kiefer
4998 Battery Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814
Spring, 1990
"Not this man, but Barabbas!"
It is often said that Christianity is at its roots anti-Jewish,
that it encourages hatred for Jews by teaching that they are
responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, it is said, this is
not just a distortion of the Christian faith by a few misguided
fanatics -- it is the teaching of the New Testament itself. In
this posting, I should like to examine in what sense, if any, this
is so.
Before examining the question of how the Christian Scriptures
interpret the events, where they lay the blame for the events
connected with the death of Jesus, let us consider how they report
the events themselves, their account of what happened, and the
role of the Jews in it.
It seems to me that some aspects of the trial of Jesus are often
misunderstood, and that it is important to clear up the misunder-
standings, both because they cause ill-will between Jews and
Christians, and because they keep us as Christians from under-
standing clearly what the Scriptures have to teach us.
In the gospels, we read that Pilate was willing to release Jesus,
but that the crowd shouted, "Crucify him!" and that Pilate gave in
rather than risk a riot. From this, many readers infer that the
overwhelming majority of Jews hated Jesus because He rebuked them
for their sins, and were determined to see Him dead. Occa-
sionally, the moral is drawn that the crowd was not so much
consistently malicious as hopelessly fickle, so that the same
tongues that shouted, "Hosannah, Son of David! Welcome in the name
of the Lord!" on Palm Sunday were ready to shout "Crucify him!"
only five days later.
Now, the first thing to be noted is that the Gospels plainly
declare that Caiaphas and his associates were determined to kill
Jesus, not because he was unpopular, but precisely because he was
popular. They were afraid that the people would hail Him as the
Messiah, and start an uprising against Rome, which the Romans
would crush without mercy, as they had similar uprisings in the
past. (John 11:47-50) And so they decided to have Him arrested,
but not when there were people about, because of the danger of a
riot in His favor. (Matthew 26:5) Hence the usefulness of Judas,
who could lead them to Him at a time and place where He was alone
and could be seized quietly.
- 1 -
Frank Morison, in his book WHO MOVED THE STONE? argues that when
Judas left the Last Supper to report a suitable opportunity for
the arrest, Caiaphas delayed long enough to make a personal visit
to Pilate and obtain his promise to ratify a conviction by the
Sanhedrin, automatically and without re-examining the case, so
that the prisoner could be sentenced at daybreak and nailed up
within the hour, before the people knew what was happening. He
points out that:
(1) There was a curiously long delay between Judas' leaving the
Upper Room and his reappearance at Gethsemane. The end of the
supper, the walk to the garden, and the three times the disci-
ples fell asleep while presumably making an effort not to, must
have covered close to three hours.
(2) If Pilate had received a visit from Caiaphas Thursday night,
he would probably have told his wife what it was about, and so
it would have been natural for her to dream of Jesus and her
husband that night, and to wake in the morning knowing that he
had gone to sign an execution order.
(3) The accusers could not enter the courtroom, lest they become
ceremonially unclean and unable to celebrate the Passover. This
required Pilate to be continually going outside to hear what
they had to say. This is a ridiculous way to conduct court, and
presumably court would not ordinarily have met that day at all.
That Pilate consented to hear the case under the circumstances
suggest prearrangement.
(4) Pilate, having gotten a note from his wife, changed his mind
and decided to re-examine the case after all, instead of simply
glancing at the warrant and signing it. When he says to the
chief priests, "What is the charge against this man?" They
answer, "If he were not a criminal, we would not have brought
him here." In other words, "Never mind the details, just sign."
This is an incredible piece of insolence, explicable only if
they were relying on an explicit promise that this case would go
through without a snag. Caiaphas had presumably explained the
night before that this was a dangerous man, that unless he was
dealt with swiftly and without giving his followers a chance to
react, there was danger of a major uprising. So here they were,
delivering the prisoner at the crack of dawn as arranged, to be
sentenced and nailed up before most of the city was stirring.
And now Pilate was, for no apparent reason, having second
thoughts.
However, there is a crowd there. They have come to demand the
release of the Passover prisoner. Now, few if any have come to
demand the release of Jesus. Except for the disciples, who have
fled in disarray, and the arresting party, almost no one in Jerus-
alem knows that Jesus has been arrested. Nor is someone likely to
show up who has no particular prisoner in mind that he wants
released, but who plans to vote for someone or other when he gets
there. In fact, most of the crowd consists of partisans of Barab-
- 2 -
bas, who have come for the express purpose of getting him
released.
Years ago I heard a sermon in which the preacher spoke of how the
crowd chose Barabbas over Jesus, and reminded us that Barabbas was
a murderer, and that it was as if the crowd had a choice between
Jesus and George Sidney Sitts (a then famous multiple murderer --
today he would have said Ted Bundy). But surely this misses the
point. Barabbas was condemned for murder and insurrection. In the
eyes of those who favored armed resistance to Rome, he was a free-
dom fighter -- less a Ted Bundy than a Nelson Mandela, or, if you
like, a Joe Hill.
An English writer, Dorothy L Sayers, in THE MAN BORN TO BE KING,
suggests an Irish parallel. Suppose that in the days before Irish
Home Rule, during, "the troubles," you are an Irishman in Dublin,
and it is St. Patrick's Day. Suppose (for the sake of illus-
tration) that it is the custom that every year on that day, the
English Governor-General must release a prisoner selected by the
Dublin crowd. This year, good old Paddy Murphy is in jail,
sentenced to be hanged, because he blew up a bridge that a British
troop train was crossing. So we are all going down to Government
House this morning to shout, "Free Paddy Murphy! Free Paddy
Murphy!" Here we are now, at the back of the crowd, almost a block
away from the balcony on which the Governor-General (may his bones
rot!) has just made his appearance. A great roar has gone up from
the crowd. "Free Paddy Murphy!" On the balcony, the Governor-Gen-
eral (may his bones rot!) is waving his arms and trying to get the
crowd to quiet down so that he can speak. People are quieting down
a little, expecting him to announce the freeing of Paddy Murphy.
But no, he is saying something to the effect that he has another
prisoner in mind that he would rather free instead. Now the crowd
is really roaring, and we are shouting along with everyone else.
The nerve of the fellow. The rule is that he has to free the man
that we pick, and does he think that he can take the choice away
from us and set someone else free instead? If he can get away with
that, we might as well not have the St. Patrick's Day Amnesty at
all. But in fact he is not going to get away with it. If he tries,
we'll see to it that he has a riot on his hands. Altogether now,
boys. "Free Paddy Murphy! Free Paddy Murphy!" Fine. The Gover-
nor-General has backed down. I knew he would. He doesn't want a
riot on his record. So Paddy Murphy is free and the other fellow
is to be hanged. Who was the other fellow? I didn't quite catch
his name, and it really doesn't matter. I suppose it is a shame
that he's got to hang, but it was him or Paddy, and what counts is
that Paddy got off, and that we showed the Governor-General (may
his bones rot!) that we know our rights and that he can't talk us
out of them.
All this, of course, takes Pilate completely off balance. He has
managed the whole thing badly. When the case first came to him, he
could have ordered the prisoner released on the spot. Instead, he
has the brain-wave about passing the buck to Herod. When Herod
simply sends the prisoner back, the crowd has assembled by this
- 3 -
time. Knowing (if he was in Jerusalem the previous Sunday he could
not help knowing) that Jesus was extremely popular with the
people, he assumes that he can talk the crowd into choosing him
for the Passover Amnesty. When this blows up in his face, he has
effectively tied his own hands. By offering the crowd a choice
between Jesus and Barabbas, he has said, "We have here two prison-
ers, both condemned to death." Having said that, he cannot turn
around and say, "I was just kidding about Jesus of Nazareth. Of
course he is innocent and I never intended to sentence him to
anything." To do that would be to acknowledge to the crowd that he
had tried to cheat them, had tried to get them to waste their vote
on a man who did not need it. Pilate has already convicted the
prisoner and passed sentence without noticing it, and there is no
way out.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
- 4 -
What is the practical application of these considerations? What
do they do for our practice, as opposed to our historical curios-
ity?
First, they guide us in making statements about the Crucifixion
and the role of the Jews therein that meet the tests of truthful-
ness, fairness, and good will. Christian statements on the subject
have not always done so, and it is important that they should.
Second, they guide us in our own thinking about the Passion of Our
Lord. It is easy to think of history and conflict in terms of good
guys and bad guys. Why did Nero persecute the Christians? Because
he was one of the bad guys. Period. Why did Caiaphas want Jesus
dead? Because Caiaphas was a wicked man. And of course this means
that we would never behave like Caiaphas, or Pilate, or Herod
(either Herod Antipas or his father Herod the Great at Bethlehem a
generation earlier). We may cut a few corners every now and then,
but sheer wickedness for its own sake is not our style.
In fact it is not as simple as that. Let us look at the record:
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and
said, "What are we to do? For his man performs many signs. If we
let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the
Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our
nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that
year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not under-
stand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for
the people and that the whole nation should not perish." (John
11:47-50)
There you have Caiaphas' motives plainly set forth, and they are
defensible and in some respects praiseworthy. Many times in Caia-
phas' lifetime men had risen up and incited the Jewish people to
strike a blow for national independence. Some of them had claimed
to be the Messiah. Some had performed, or were believed by many to
have performed, miracles. All had ended in disaster, with severe
repressions by the Romans. Caiaphas had every reason to fear that
with the next uprising all traces of Jewish liberty would be
stamped out. Certainly he had grounds for arguing that it was
better to kill one potential leader of a rebellion than let him
survive to lead thousands to their deaths. A general who will not
sacrifice one man to save a battalion has no business in uniform.
Do we ever reason like this, concentrating so on the Big Picture
that we neglect the immediate issues of right and wrong that are
before us? Perhaps not. Most of us are not in a position to be
faced with policy decisions on a large scale. Very well then, let
us look at the crowd. If they had assembled that morning out of
sheer malice and wickedness, because they had heard that a
completely innocent man was on trial and they wanted to make sure
that he was not acquitted, then their actions would have no lesson
for us. But in fact they were there for the perfectly legitimate
purpose of getting a Freedom Fighter out of the clutches of the
- 5 -
occupation troops. Intent on their purpose, they did not stop to
think when Pilate put forward an alternative. They simply thrust
it aside and demanded what they had come to demand, seeing in
Pilate's suggestion only a distraction from the business at hand.
Are we ever like that? Do we ever pursue a goal with a single-
mindedness that keeps us from stopping to consider who might get
hurt in the process? If so, then let us remember Our Lord's words:
"What you have done to the least of these, you have done to Me."
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
- 6 -
We have seen how the Holy Scriptures narrate the events leading up
to the Crucifixion. Now, what do they say about blame for the
events?
On two occasions, Peter, addressing Jewish audiences, speaks of
them as involved in the killing of Jesus.
"Men of Israel, Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God
with mighty works which God did through him in your midst, you
crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:22-23,
abridged)
"Men of Israel, the God of our fathers glorified his child Jesus,
whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when
he had decided to release him." (Acts 3:12-13, abridged)
However, when Paul is addressing a synagogue audience in Pisidian
Antioch, he says:
"Brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you
that fear God, to us has been sent the message of this salva-
tion. For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because
they did not recognize him or understand the utterances of the
prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by
condemning him. Though they could charge him with nothing
deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed."
(Acts 13:26-28)
The distinction is clear. Peter is addressing crowds in Jerusalem,
the first address less than two months after the Crucifixion, and
the second shortly thereafter. It is probable that both audiences
included persons who had been present when Jesus was condemned.
But Paul, addressing Jews outside Jerusalem, says, not "You killed
him," but "They of Jerusalem killed him." There is no suggestion
in the New Testament that "the Jews" as a body were responsible
for the Crucifixion. The most that can be argued is that the writ-
ers think that "they of Jerusalem" were responsible. responsible.
Now Christians have been accustomed to view the fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD as a punishment
for the Crucifixion. And in support of this, we have Christ's own
words as he wept over the city (Luke 19:41-44 and Matthew
23;37-39). What are we to make of this?
I reply that a historian who refused to put any religious inter-
pretation at all on his data would nevertheless have good grounds
for connecting the crowd's choice of Barabbas over Jesus with the
fall of the city a generation later. The people were offered a
choice between two leaders, one offering spiritual renewal and the
other political and military action aiming at national independ-
ence. They chose the latter. Given the strength of Rome, and
Rome's willingness to use that strength, the choice was suicidal.
A purely secular historian might have listened to the crowd that
day and said, "Now I know that the sack of this city by the Romans
- 7 -
is inevitable." A Jewish friend to whom I made this point asked,
"But why do you blame the Jews of that day for aspiring to poli-
tical freedom and national independence? In what other people
would such a goal be considered anything but admirable?" I said:
"One answer would be that the Jews had a calling not to be like
the other nations, and that therefore what is allowed to other
peoples might not be allowed to them (1 Sam 8:7,19-20). It is not
that political aspirations are wrong in themselves, but that they
cannot take first place with those called to serve God. But in
fact, I remind you that our hypothetical historian is carefully
steering clear of religious and moral judgements. He is not saying
that it is wrong for the Jews to fight Rome for their independ-
ence. He is only saying that if they do, they are bound to lose --
which they did."
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
- 8 -
So, when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but that a riot
was about to begin, he took water and washed his hands before
the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it
yourselves." And all the people answered, "His blood be on us
and on our children." (Matthew 27;24-25)
Here we have the people solemnly cursing themselves. But one thing
is missing -- a voice thundering from heaven, "So be it!" It is
written: "How can I curse whom God has not cursed?" (Numbers 23:8)
A curse, even on oneself, is powerless if God does not ratify it.
Jesus, as He was being crucified, said, "Father, forgive them, for
they know not what they do." Does anyone suppose that His words
carried less weight with the Father than theirs did?
(I regret to say that I have heard one speaker argue that this
prayer was spoken only on behalf of the Roman soldiers, not on
behalf of the Jewish rulers, since they knew what they were doing.
This contradicts the words of Peter (Acts 3:17): "Brothers, I know
that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers.")
On the other hand, the fact remains that Matthew has preserved for
us the words of the crowd. Since he clearly did not preserve every
word spoken that day, it appears that he thought these words
significant. What then is their meaning?
There are no grounds for applying them to the Jewish people as
such. The application must be narrower, to the then inhabitants
of Jerusalem and their immediate offspring, the next generation;
or broader, to all the peoples of the earth.
(1) As we have already noted, they are applicable to the sack of
Jerusalem, and it is largely the crowd front of Pilate's hall,
and their children, who would bear the brunt of that sack when
it came a generation later.
(2) On the other hand, they are applicable to the whole human
race. In the Law of Moses, we find that blood is taken as a
symbol of guilt. To say that A's blood is on B is to say that B
bears the responsibility and the guilt for the death of A. But
blood is also taken as a sign of purification. When a leper is
declared to be well again, and clean of his former disease, he
is marked and sprinkled with blood (Le 14:6,7,17). When the
covenant is ratified at Sinai between God and the people of
Israel, they are sprinkled with blood (Ex 24:8). When a priest
is consecrated to the service of the Lord, he is marked and
sprinkled with blood (Ex 29:20f; Le 8:23f,30) In like manner the
blood of Christ is on every member of the human race, either for
guilt and condemnation, or for cleansing, incorporation into the
covenant, and consecration.
May God grant it to each of us to receive it for the latter!
- 9 -
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank