The Gospel According to Barabbas

Lambert's Library ^ | James Boice & Chuck Missler

[P-Marlowe]

Barabbas

by James M. Boice

Sometimes people get into debates over who was responsible for Jesus' crucifixion. Was it the Jews, who hated him and asked Pilate to have him killed? Or was it the Romans, who actually carried out the execution? The [gospels] recognize the guilt of both parties, plus that of the masses of Jerusalem. But that is not what they are chiefly concerned about. Their emphasis is upon this being the work of God, who by it was accomplishing salvation for all who would believe on Christ. This is why, in another place, Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). It was God the Father who sent the Lord Jesus Christ to the cross. This tells us that the death of Jesus was no accident, but rather the accomplishment of God's plan of redemption, devised even before the universe was created. It is why Jesus came. It was for others. The death of Jesus, thus planned by God, was for others, which means that it was substitutionary or vicarious. Paul says that it was "for our sins." Death is God's punishment for sin, its consequence. But Jesus had not sinned and therefore did not deserve death. That he did die was because he was dying in our place as our sin-bearer.

"In his great commentary on Bible doctrine, which uses Romans as a "point of departure," Donald Grey Barnhouse illustrates the substitutionary nature of Christ's death by the story of Barabbas. We know that Barabbas was a robber and murderer who had been arrested by the Romans and was in prison awaiting execution at the time of the trial of Jesus Christ. Pilate had no concern for Barabbas--the world would be better off without him--but he wanted to save Jesus and so hit on the idea of offering the people a choice between the two. It was customary to free a prisoner at the time of the Feast of Passover. "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" Pilate asked the crowd (Matt. 27:21).

"He was astonished when the people replied, "Barabbas!" Barnhouse pictures Barabbas sitting in the prison, staring at his hands, which were soon to be pierced by nails, and shuddering at any sound of hammering that might remind him with horror of his own impending crucifixion. Suddenly he hears a crowd roaring outside the prison. There are angry voices. "Crucify him! Crucify him!" He thinks he hears his own name. Then a jailer comes to unlock the door of his cell. Barabbas thinks that the time for his execution has come, but instead the jailer tells him that he is being set free. The crowd has called for his release. Jesus of Nazareth is to die instead. Stunned, Barabbas joins the processional that is making its way to Calvary and watches as Jesus is crucified. He hears the sound of the hammer and knows that the blows that are fastening Jesus to the rough wooden cross were meant for him. He sees the cross lifted high into place and knows that he is the one who should be dying on it. Jesus cries, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). The centurion who has commanded the execution party exclaims, "Surely this man was the Son of God! " (Mark 15:39). Barabbas must have been saying, "That man took my place. I am the one who should have died. I am the condemned murderer. That man did nothing wrong. He is dying for me." Barnhouse concludes, "Barabbas was the only man in the world who could say that Jesus Christ took his physical place. But [all who are Christians] can say that Jesus Christ took [their] spiritual place." The fact that we are sinners means that we deserve to die. We deserve the eternal punishment of the lake of fire. But Jesus was delivered up for our offenses. He was crucified for our sins. That is why we speak of substitutionary atonement and vicarious suffering, and it is why Jesus' death is so central to the gospel. Nothing that overlooks the death of Christ is the gospel. As Barnhouse says, "Christianity can be expressed in three phrases: I deserved Hell; Jesus took my Hell; there is nothing left for me but his heaven." (James Montgomery Boice, Romans, Baker Books 1991)

 

The Gospel According to Barabbas

Chuck Missler

The substitution of Barabbas over Jesus before Pilate on that fateful day has profound implications for each of us. (Barabbas in Hebrew means "son of the father"). It is illuminating to examine the contrast between the two accused more closely:

1) Barabbas stood under the righteous condemnation of the law.

2) Barabbas knew the One who was to take his cross and take his place was innocent.

3) Barabbas knew that Jesus Christ was for him a true substitute.

4) Barabbas knew that he had done nothing to merit going free while another took his place.

5) Barabbas knew Christ's death was for him perfectly efficacious.

Barabbas and Jesus changed places! "The murderer's bonds, curse, disgrace, and mortal agony were transferred to the righteous Jesus; while the liberty, innocence, safety, and well-being of the immaculate Nazarene became the lot of the murderer.

"Barabbas is installed in all the rights and privileges of Jesus Christ; while the latter enters upon all the infamy and horror of the rebel's position.

"Both mutually inherit each other's situation and what they possess: The delinquent's guilt and cross become the lot of the Just One, and all the civil rights and immunities of the latter are the property of the delinquent." (John W. Lawrence, The Six Trials of Jesus, Kregel Publishing Co., Grand Rapids MI 1996, p.181).

In the Gospels: Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13-25, John 18:38-39

[P-Marlowe]

Just something to think about before seeing The Passion.

[jude24]

Too late....

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed. Thank you so very much!

[Inyokern]

1) Barabbas stood under the righteous condemnation of the law.

On what basis does he say Barabbas was under "righteous" condemnation of the law? According to the Gospels, Barabbas appears to have been a political rebel. He was sentenced to execution for engaging in an "insurrection" in which someone was killed.

I have asked this question before and no one has answered it. Why is William Wallace (Braveheart) considered to be a hero by all the Christians here while Barabbas' conviction is said to be "righteous?"

Barabbas is installed in all the rights and privileges of Jesus Christ; while the latter enters upon all the infamy and horror of the rebel's position.

Here he admits that Barabbas was a "rebel." What is the difference between Barabbas and William Wallace? Would Jesus have approved of William Wallace? If Christians believe Barabbas deserved to be crucified, then didn't Wallace get what he deserved? Why is one a hero and the other a villian?

[dangus]

Isn't there an apocryphal (or, better stated, pseudoepigraphical) gospel named, "The Gospel According to Barabbas?"

[dangus]

I'll agree that there is much grey in the comparison of Wallace and Barabbas. But I would offer a few points:
1. Jesus does not condemn the zealot movement. In fact, one of his followers is identified as "Simon the Zealot," and not "Simon, the former zealot." We are merely taught that Christ's way is superior to insurrection.
2. At what point does insurrection against an unjust ruler become merely terrorism? Wallace didn't simply go around murdering Longshank's cronies; he amassed a credible army with the force to beat back the King's forces and establish a decent reign, not just a perpetual state of terror. Although the zealots did eventuall amass such an army, nothing in the text suggests that Barabbas' violence led to it. In fact, quite the contrary, he is in one gospel simply described as a robber (armed theif), an obvious denigration.
3. Barabbas was a criminal under Roman law. Jesus was accused of incitement to revolt, but had preached no such thing. In fact, when the Jewish authorities baited him to call for disobedience, he insisted, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." This statement even suggests some legitimacy of Roman rule, even if the Romans abused their authority; Christians are not called to lawlessness just because their government is oppressive.

[dangus]

... oops wasn't finished...
Continuing with point 3... So whereas Barabbas was a criminal under man's law, Christ was innocent, even under man's law. Wallace helped re-establish lawfulness (given the version of events expressed in "Braveheart.")

[P-Marlowe]

If Christians believe Barabbas deserved to be crucified, then didn't Wallace get what he deserved?

Well, considering the fact that I am a direct descendant of Edward I, I'd have to say, YES!, he deserved what he got. :-)

[spunkets]

"I have asked this question before and no one has answered it."

I answered your question before. Seems you ignored it. Given Barrabas was simply a patriot of Israel. There was no righteusness in his arrest and conviction. In fact there was no righteous justification for Rome's conquest of Israel.

The choice illustrated in the gospels was simply to chose between the things of the world and those of Heaven. No more, no less.

[xzins]

My wife is a Crawford...of the line of Wallace. Wallace was a revolutionary; the bible paints Barabbas as a murderer. Mark 15:7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.

He was imprisoned WITH the insurrectionists, BUT he had apparently used the insurrection as a cover for committing murder.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Mark 15:7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising.

He was imprisoned WITH the insurrectionists, BUT he had apparently used the insurrection as a cover for committing murder.

It doesn't say he used the uprising as cover to commit murder. He probably killed someone during the uprising, which would not be uncommon at all. I would imagine that Wallace too had killed during various uprisings.

[dangus]

Edward the FIRST... OK, cause we're talking Edward II when we talk of Longshanks, aren't we? My impression was his Pappy just as soon his son be offed, too, no? Um, let's just say, Edward II didn't have any direct descendents, if I remember right. :^)

[P-Marlowe]

Edward the FIRST... OK, cause we're talking Edward II when we talk of Longshanks, aren't we?

No, we're not.

Edward I, Longshanks
(1272-1307 AD)

Born: 17 June 1239 at the Palace of Westminster

Died: 7 July 1307 at Burgh-on-Sands, Cumberland

Buried: Westminster Abbey, Middlesex

Parents: Henry III and Eleanor of Provence

Siblings: Margaret, Beatrice, Edmund, Richard, John, Katherine, William & Henry

Crowned: 19 August 1274 at Westminster Abbey, Middlesex

Married: (1st) October 1254 at Las Huelgas, Castile; (2nd) 10 September 1299 at Canterbury Cathedral

Spouse: (1st) Eleanor daughter of Ferdinand III, King of of Castile & Leon; (2nd) Margaret daughter of Philip III, King of France

Offspring: (1st) Eleanor, Joan, John, Henry, Julian (alias Katherine), Joan, Alfonso, Margaret, Berengaria, Mary, Alice, Elizabeth, Edward, Beatrice & Blanche; (2nd) Thomas, Edmund & Eleanor; (Illegitimate) supposedly one

Contemporaries: Robert Burnell (Chancellor, 1272-1288); Alexander III (King of Scotland, 1249-1286); Robert Bruce; William Wallace; Philip IV (King of France, 1285-1314); Llywelyn ap Gruffydd

[polemikos]

Sometimes people get into debates over who was responsible for Jesus' crucifixion. Was it the Jews, who hated him and asked Pilate to have him killed? Or was it the Romans, who actually carried out the execution?

John 10:17-18 - Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.

[presidio9]

The nature of Barabas' crimes is irrelevant. He WAS guilty. Christ was 100% innocent, and the crowd chose Barabas over Him. That's the point.

[Inyokern]

The nature of Barabas' crimes is irrelevant. He WAS guilty.

Guilty of what? William Wallace (Bravehart) was "guilty" too. So was Nathan Hale. But these men are heroes, right?