Barabbas Types
By Ron Smith
Tyrants
hate tyrants. But before anyone has authority to speak against tyrants they
must first conquer the tyrant within. I have had several experiences of being
under unreasonable tyrants for many years. I have been forced to eat a lot of
doo doo and I reacted in rebellious anger. But not until my stubborn heart
submitted to them (without agreeing to their tyranny) did I obtain the
authority to resist them. This cannot be understood intellectually. It must be
experienced. Anyone who says he believes in God’s sovereignty and still cannot
control his urge to be right has still not conquered the tyrant within. God put
me under those tyrants to break me from always having to be right.
In Matthew 27:16, Barabbas was called a
“notorious prisoner.” In Mark 15:7, Luke 23:19, and John 18:40, Barabbas was
“among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection,” a
revolutionary against the occupying Roman forces.
The name Barabbas means “son of the father” (bar abba) or “son of the teacher” (bar rabban), indicating
perhaps that his father was a Jewish leader. According to the early biblical
scholar Origen and other commentators, the full name of Barabbas may have been
Jesus Barabbas, since Jesus was a common first name.
Therefore the crowd was presented with a choice between two kinds of Jesus with
the same name and Caesar. They responded in the typical schizophrenic manner of
saying, “We have no king but Caesar, crucify Him and give us Barabbas.”
Josephus
says in W 2.17.2 408-410
“And now some of the most
ardent promoters of hostilities banded together and made an assault on the
fortress called Masada, and having gained possession of it by stratagem, they
slew the Roman guards and put a garrison
of their own in their place.
At the same time Eleazar,
the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time
governor of the Temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service
to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true
beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar
on this account; and when many of the chief priests and principal men besought
them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for
their princes, they would not be prevailed upon.”
This
act in 66 A.D. was the beginning of the end. Instead of praying for the rulers
as Paul commanded in 1 Timothy 2:1-2 they reasoned that they could not pray for
tyrants who violated God’s law.
The Jewish Revolt of 66 to 70 AD/CE had
its origin in several different troubles identified by Josephus. At various
points in his work he specifically names different events as 'the" cause
of the war, either as an immediate trigger or as a fundamental motive. These
include:
- the involvement of governor Albinus with criminal gangs
- the removal of rights of Jews in Caesarea
- the pollution of the synagogue of Caesarea
- the murder of High Priest Jonathan
- the murder of High Priest Ananias
- the refusal to sacrifice to the Emperor
- the Fourth Philosophy that held divine assistance would come to a rebellion: "the infection which spread from them among the younger sort, who became zealous for it, brought the public to destruction."
- the criminal acts and abuse of authority on the part of governor Gessius Florus
- a conspiracy on the part of Florus
- a certain ambiguous oracle (War 6.5.4)
From these specific incidents the chief
causes of the war in Josephus' eyes can be identified. Emphasized throughout
his work is the cruelty and corruption of the Roman administrators,
particularly those serving under Emperor Nero. Next in importance, judging by
the amount of attention Josephus gives, was an extremist party that mixed
nationalism with a religious ideal: to free the Holy Land from the powers of
the world so that it would be only under the governance of Heaven. Between
these two opposing forces there played themes of class and ethnic conflict which
polarized the nation. The repeated robberies, riots, and uprisings these
caused were kept in check by the harsh actions of the administrators, which in
turn caused resentment among the populace, forming the familiar cycle of
protest/response/protesting the response, common to the escalation of
rebellions.
These are the
specific elements Josephus stresses in his works. There is a larger context,
some of which is indicated in the introduction to the War. The empire had grown
weak in the last days of Nero. The corruption of the governors directly
reflected the flaws in their emperor. Judea was not the only province to
revolt; but its war was the longest and bloodiest. And the problems of
religious nationalism and class and ethnic struggle had its roots in the long
history of the Jews and the unresolved problems of the correct form of
religious observance and the place of the powerful non-Jewish nations in the
divine plan.”[1]
Notice that Josephus does not fail to emphasize the
wickedness of “an extremist party that mixed
nationalism with a religious ideal: to free the Holy Land from the powers of
the world so that it would be only under the governance of Heaven.” These
“Barabbas” types were theonomists. The apostles were also theonomists, but not
of the Barabbas type. Peter acted like the Barabbas type when he cut off the
ear of the high priest’s servant. Barabbas types, without realizing it are
denying the sovereignty of God. Armed rebellion must be only under the
authority of lesser magistrates. That is Calvinism and also the doctrine of the
Magdeburg Confession. Not until Peter proved his true fear when he denied
Christ was he able to be broken free from his carnal logic.
Carnal logic says, “Caesar’s laws are contrary to God’s law
and therefore we can break them. Caesar stole that coin with his image;
therefore it is not lawful to pay taxes. To pay it is to violate God’s
law. It is not lawful (according to God’s
law) for a soldier to take my shirt, slap me on the cheek, or make me carry his
100-pound load for a mile. Therefore I demand my rights.” Some Barabbas types
even believe that any soldier employed by Caesar is violating God’s law. They
forget that Daniel was the supervisor over all the tax collectors of the Persia
beast (portrayed in the vision of Daniel 7 as a predatory bear).
When King Zedekiah disobeyed the King of Babylon (Lucifer),
God said he broke God’s covenant. “As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely in
the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised, and
whose covenant with him he broke, in Babylon he shall die… Therefore
thus says the Lord GOD: As I live, surely it is my oath that he despised, and
my covenant that he broke. I will return it upon his head” (Ezekiel 17:16-19
ESV). God sent His people to Babylon and
defiled them with pagan laws to which they were to submit unless commanded to
disobey God. Paying taxes and submitting to laws by which they could not live
was obviously not breaking God’s law. “Moreover, I swore to them in the
wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them
through the countries, [24] because they had not obeyed my rules, but had
rejected my statutes and profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their
fathers' idols. Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by
which they could not have life, and I defiled them… I did it that they might
know that I am the LORD” (Ezekiel 20:23-26 ESV). Why did Daniel ask permission
to not defile himself with the king’s food? God gave us that example so we
would get permission from the government for home schools in order to not
defile our children with what Caesar wants to cram down their throats. Why did Nehemiah
have to ask the king for permission to rebuild Jerusalem? It was because God
Himself had placed His people under the authority of the beast. Why did the
early Christians not demand their rights and seek to overthrow Rome like the
Jews did?
There are three choices: Caesar’s law as the highest law,
Barabbas types to overthrow Caesar’s ungodly laws, or Christ. The leaders of
Jerusalem sealed their doom by choosing Barabbas. God sent them the Sicarii.
In
Book 7 of The Jewish War (253–74) Josephus distinguishes in a general
way between the various parties which took part in the resolute stand against
Rome. In respective order, he mentions the Sicarii, the followers of *John of
Giscala, the soldiers of *Simeon bar Giora, and finally the Zealots. The main distinctions
are exemplified also in incidents which he describes in his detailed
description of these sects in the earlier books of The Jewish War. Both
references help towards an understanding of events. As stated, the Sicarii are
mentioned first in the general summary in Book 7. Elsewhere Josephus describes
the emergence of this extreme freedom group against the background of the
establishment of the Province of Judea, which was connected with the census
instituted by *Quirinius, the legate of Syria, in the year 6 C.E. (Ant.
18:4–10). The census was a profound shock to the Jewish people as a whole and
it was only after considerable effort that the high priest at the time, Joezer
ben Boethus, succeeded in quietening the emotions aroused among the majority of
the people. Nevertheless, *Judah the Galilean of Gamala in Gaulanitis joined
forces with *Zadok the Pharisee to issue a call for armed revolt, since in
their eyes the census represented outright slavery. In their speeches they went
so far as to declare that God would come to the aid of those who did not spare
themselves in the struggle. According to Josephus, Judah and Zadok were the
founders of the "Fourth Philosophy," the other three being the
*Pharisees, the *Sadducees, and the *Essenes. After they acquired a great
number of followers they involved the Jewish body politic in uprisings and
sowed the seeds of the future catastrophes which were to overwhelm the Jewish
people. Later on, after he gives a description of the "three
philosophies," Josephus returns to Judah, whom he refers to simply as
"the Galilean," and gives a succinct account of his
"philosophy." According to him the adherents of this philosophy agree
in general with the Pharisees, and are distinguished from them only by their
unbounded love for freedom and by the fact that they accept God as their only
master and leader. They are freely and readily prepared to submit to even the
most horrible of deaths and to see their relations and friends tortured rather
than accept human domination. Josephus even emphasizes that this resolute
determination of theirs is widely known and therefore there is no fear that the
truth of what he says will be challenged; on the contrary, he is afraid that he
may not have sufficiently emphasized their indifference to torture (Ant.
18:23–5).[2]
These
rebels were theonomists. The Barabbas spirit is a doctrine of devils. The Meek
and Lowly One of Galilee conquered Rome God’s way; not by demanding our rights
and sassing policemen, but by proclaiming the kingship of Christ “so that
through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the
rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 3:10 ESV). They meek
conquered Rome by the blood of the Lamb, the public proclamation of their
testimony, and by not loving their lives unto death. They refused unto death to
bow to the image of the state, but they submitted as unto the Lord to every
ordinance of man.
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,
whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to
punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will
of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish
people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for
evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear
God. Honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV).
The
meek shall inherit the earth; not smart alecks.
It
is true that no lawless tyrant has a right to rule, but God is the One that
gives us the rulers we deserve. The tyrant might not have a legal right under
God’s law, but God is the one who puts them in power because His people break
His covenant. The only just means to take up arms against them is under the authority
of lesser magistrates. Examples of this are found in the Maccabees (Matthias
was an elder and a Levite), the city of Magdeburg, certain Huguenot cities in
France, Holland, Cromwell under Parliament, Richard Cameron as an official in
the state church, and the American Revolution under the Continental Congress.
Preachers
are to speak up against tyranny just as the Black Robed Regiment did in the
decade leading up to the American Revolution.
I
repeat: Tyrants hate tyrants. But before anyone has authority to speak against
tyrants they must first conquer the tyrant within. I have had several
experiences of being under unreasonable tyrants. I have been forced to eat a
lot of doo doo and I reacted in rebellious anger. But not until my stubborn
heart submitted to them did I obtain the authority to resist them. This cannot
be understood intellectually. It must be experienced. Anyone who says he
believes in God’s sovereignty and still cannot control his urge to be right has
still not conquered the tyrant within. God put me under those tyrants to break
me from always having to be right.
