The two options might seem the same, but they are entirely different

And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him. But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?” So they cried out again, saying, “Not this man, but Barabbas.” Now Barabbas was a robber.

John 18:38-40

Introduction

Unwilling to condemn Jesus himself, Pilate turned to the crowd to make the difficult decision for him. Here he acted as the agnostic rather than the full-blown atheist, choosing to defer to the whims of a riled up crowd rather than his own judgment which concluded, “I find no guilt in Him.”

In Matthew’s account of this scene, Pilate even goes so far as to declare, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” after washing his hands before the crowd. This attitude is lock-step with the present day agnostic who is so fearful of being wrong he chooses not to commit to any conviction whatsoever. But like Pilate ordering Jesus to be scourged, so too, the agnostic is guilty of the body and blood of Christ whether he wishes this to be so or not. It is all of our sin that sent Him to the cross where He became the new Adam and new head over a new mankind (1 Corinthians 15:45).

Both of them alike

The choice Pilate presents to the people is between the notorious criminal Barabbas and Jesus whom he calls “King of the Jews.” For Pilate in this moment, it does not matter which of the two is chosen. His interest does not lie in justice, but in order. If an act of injustice can maintain order, he will do it without hesitation.

Releasing Barabbas would certainly be an act of injustice. Proverbs 17:15 tells us that “he who justifies the wicked” is an abomination to God. Here, the justification of Barabbas is not the same kind of justification we receive by the blood of Christ. Instead, it is an admission of his guilt while withholding the due punishment for his crime. John calls him a robber. Matthew calls him a notorious prisoner. Mark says he is an insurrectionist and a murderer. And Luke agrees with Mark.

Barabbas was not a good man. A thief, a criminal of notoriety, a rebel, and a murderer was presented to the crowd as an alternative to the Son of God. And they choose to condemn the innocent man. They spur Pilate on to be a double abomination before God. Proverbs 17:15 states in its entirety, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh.”

Son of the Father

But before you think Pilate’s decision should have been obvious, we can note the little play on words present in the two men. Jesus, the Son of Man, is also called the Son of God. When He teaches the disciples to pray, He initiates that prayer by addressing God as “our Father” (Matthew 6:9). Similarly, the prophet Isaiah also prays to God, addressing Him as “our Father” (Isaiah 63:16). Jesus is the Son of the Father, a key fact when working out the doctrine of the Trinity.

But the notorious prisoner Barabbas is also “Son of the Father.” Barabbas’ name is Aramaic. As is the way Jesus addresses Peter in Matthew 16 when He commends Peter on his confession of Jesus as Christ, saying, “Blessed are You, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Peter’s given name is Simon, and he is “Bar-Jonah” or “Son of Jonah.” Similarly, Barabbas is the son of “Abba”, or “Son of the Father.”

So the choice then becomes one between the Son of the Father and the Son of the Father. One is the Son of God, holy and blameless, while the other is a child of Adam, our first father, stained incurably by the curse of sin. And this is the choice all of us face. There is no neutrality. We cannot wash our hands of the issue and toss it up for the crowd to decide. Either you are one with the Son of the Father, the eternal God through whom all things were made and are held together, or you are one with the Son of the Father, the notorious criminal whose release completes the double abomination.

May the Lord bless you and conform you into the image of His Son.


Discover more from Jonathan remmers

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 responses to “The two options might seem the same, but they are entirely different”

  1. Never noticed that play on words. Very interesting 😊

  2. I agree that I had not considered the Bar-Abba view of the wording, especially considering the Arabic origin that you noted.

    Your greater point of being either for Jesus or against Jesus makes me think of the passage in Matthew 12:30 (Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.) It continues in 12:31 to describe the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Spirit. Is that connected to the words of Pilate here as well?

    1. Yes, I think Pilate trying to take the neutral ground betrays a heart that is fundamentally against Jesus. One famous quote that came out of the horrible 20th century tragedy of the Holocaust is by Elie Wiesel who claimed “the opposite of love is not hate, it’s apathy.”
      This reminds me of the letter to the Church in Laodicea from Revelation 3 where Jesus tells them that He will spit them out because they are neither hot not cold, but lukewarm. They are apathetic to the mission of the Church and to the commands of the Lord. Similarly, Pilate is fundamentally indifferent as to the sentence he hands out as long as his position, life, and livelihood is protected.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Jonathan remmers

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading