skafather84 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
OK, so why didn't Pilate do more to intervene?
Simple politics. They're an occupying force, Jesus was of no consequence to them and the crowd would rather release a murderer than him. Why cause more problem for his soldiers and possibly lose some of his soldiers in any riots? An occupying control is very tenuous.
True. But my point is that Pilate's decision was all his own, deciding to bend to pressure or release an innocent person. And yes, Barabbas was a murderer. But what you may not be aware of is that Barabbas was also considered a revolutionary--a rebel, and a famous one at that. I'm not sure whether he was an insurgent resisting Jewish rule or Roman rule, but regardless he was some kind of enemy of the state. What's interesting about this is it basically means that Jesus was being set up for the same crime. Logically, I don't see why Pilate would have encouraged the people to take Jesus over Barabbas if Barabbas WASN'T some public menace. Scripture doesn't really reveal that to us, but Pilate does seem to be working in Jesus favor (or attempting to, at least). But at the same time, it could be that Pilate was indifferent and was just trying to cover all his bases by offering Barabbas, even if Barabbas WAS an enemy of the Roman state. The reason I think this MAY be possible is some Bible manuscripts also refer to Barabbas as Jesus. Our name "Jesus" comes from a word that means "Yah rescues," or "God rescues" ("Yah" being a shortened form of "Yahweh"), and was not an unknown name. "Joshua" is also derived from the same root words, hence "Jesus" would have been "Ye'shua." So it could be that "God saves" was a nickname for Barabbas. If so, then releasing Barabbas would have been viewed as favorable regardless if Jesus had been the criminal in question or not.
I'm not saying I know for sure, but the Bible does leave us some hints. I'd rather leave it to a better-informed Bible scholar as to the truth of that. Tradition is that Barabbas was NOT someone the Jews would have wanted running free. Tradition, however, is not without its faults, so this is certainly something worth looking into.
Either way, any Christian familiar with this story has to recognize that Pilate's decision was still PILATE'S decision, hence Rome shares in the responsibility of Christ's death. And if you take that a little more literally in a modern context, this will include the Vatican. Let no one say the Jews acted alone, nor let anyone despise the Jews for the crucifixion. We ALL share in the death of Jesus.
The story could have taken a slightly different twist. Suppose the Jews HAD recognized Jesus for who He claimed to be. Suppose He had been accepted by the chief priests. We know that in reality Jesus posed no real threat to the Roman occupiers. But the temple at that time was also used as a financial institution, so there would have been Romans posted at the temple to handle currency exchange. The temple purge alone would have implicated Jesus as a possible terrorist threat. We know from history that the Romans didn't need help from the Jews to persecute early Christians. Jesus, as a man, was on borrowed time, and I personally doubt that the Jews would have risked their own lives to protect Him when His time was up. The story would have slightly been rewritten, but the end result would have been the same.
28 Jul 2010, 3:52 pm
