Matthew Blog Revised

Ok. I have a major question that I have a few theories about. Why was Barabbas allowed to go free instead of Jesus? It was recorded that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate started to release Jesus, but at the urging of a crowd full of the Jewish constituency released Barabbas. The chief priests, Jewish constituency, and possibly other rebels played an active role in the decision to destroy Jesus. They all had their reasons for wanting Jesus out of the picture, but Barabbas still should not have been allowed to go free.

It is known that Pilate attempted to adhere to his custom: “The custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem at Passover is known as the Paschal Pardon,^[10] but this custom (whether at Passover or any other time) is not recorded in any historical document other than the gospels”. I thought it odd that this custom was not recorded anywhere else other than the gospels. That day’s events did not go off without a hitch: “The Roman governor Pontius Pilate tried to use this custom as an excuse to release Jesus. But a crowd in the courtyard demanded that a prisoner named Barabbas be freed instead, and Pilate eventually gave in to the pressure.” This theory of Jesus Christ being crucified because of one man’s weakness to the influence of the Jewish constituency is definitely a valid reason. The magnitude of pressure from this group that Pilate was subject to was significant enough to change his choice for who would be executed by crucifixion. Obviously, there were other rebels, the Jewish constituency, and chief priests or the Jewish elite present in the crowd who wanted to witness what Jesus’ fate would be, and their presence definitely made an impact on the crowd’s choice: “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus” (Matthew 27:20). The chief priests and elders convinced everyone to vote to release Barabbas because Jesus’ following had gotten too large. The chief priests had a monumental fear of what Jesus was doing: “Their fear was that, if Jesus acquired a large following and became a political ruler or king, (which was against the Roman Law), that Rome would come down and squash the rebellion, and remove the authority of the council”.

~Pilate, more than likely did not prefer to release Barabbas because of the things he had done: “Barabbas, was a criminal, responsible for insurgence, murder and robbery”. Barabbas was a criminal and a murderer, but his most prominent crime was his involvement with the insurgent rebels who were against the Roman government. It is also worth mentioning that there was another significant reason why Pilate would have preferred to crucify Barabbas instead: “Barabbas lived during a time when the independent Jewish state established by the Hasmonean dynasty had been brought to an end by the unrivaled power of the Roman Empire”. Barabbas was a part of the independent Jewish state that had been brought down by the Romans. Pilate knew Barabbas to be a resistance force against the Roman empire, and if the decision was left up to him, then Barabbas would have been crucified. I believe if Pilate knew that if he had not released Barabbas that there would have been a guaranteed uprising, so he chose to crucify Jesus Christ because it would not cause as many waves, and it would also please the Jewish constituency.

In conclusion, I will wrap up this question by inviting all theories of why this happened. The Jewish constituency, chief priests, and rebels who were present during the crowd’s vote between the prisoners definitely made a significant impact on the course of events on that day. The influence of these individuals single-handedly decided Jesus’ fate.