Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 18:40
Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
40. Then cried they all again ] Better, They cried out therefore ( Joh 18:3) again all of them. S. John has not mentioned any previous shout of the multitude; he once more assumes that his readers know the chief facts. See on Joh 19:6.
Barabbas ] Or, Bar-Abbas, son of Abba (father). The innocent Son of the Father is rejected for the blood-stained son of a father. In Mat 27:16-17 some inferior authorities read ‘ Jesus Barabbas’ as his name, and Pilate asks ‘Which do ye wish that I release to you, Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus Who is called Christ?’ The reading is remarkable, but it is supported by no good MS.
Now Barabbas was a robber ] There is a tragic impressiveness in this brief remark. Comp. ‘Jesus wept’ (Joh 11:35), and ‘And it was night’ (Joh 13:30). It is to be regretted that ‘robber’ has not always been given as the translation of the Greek word used here ( not ). Thus we should have ‘den of robbers ’ or ‘ robbers ’ cave’ (Mat 21:13); ‘as against a robber ’ (Mat 26:55); ‘two robbers ’ (Mat 27:38; Mat 27:44). The ‘robber’ is the bandit or brigand, who is more dangerous to persons than to property, and sometimes combines something of chivalry with his violence. In the case of Barabbas we know from S. Mark and S. Luke that he had been guilty of insurrection and consequent bloodshed rather than of stealing; and this was very likely the case also with the two robbers crucified with Jesus. Thus by a strange irony of fate the hierarchy obtain the release of a man guilty of the very political crime with which they charged Christ, sedition. The people no doubt had some sympathy with the insurrectionary movement of Barabbas, and on this the priests worked. Barabbas had done, just what Jesus had refused to do, take the lead against the Romans. “They laid information against Jesus before the Roman government as a dangerous character; their real complaint against Him was precisely this, that He was not dangerous. Pilate executed Him on the ground that His kingdom was of this world; the Jews procured His execution precisely because it was not.” Ecce Homo, p. 27.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 40. Barabbas was a robber] See Mt 27:16.
The later Syriac has in the margin, , a chief robber, a captain of banditti, and it is probable that this was the case. He was not only a person who lived by plunder, but shed the blood of many of those whom he and his gang robbed, and rose up against the Roman government, as we learn from Lu 23:19. There never existed a more perfidious, cruel, and murderous people than these Jews; and no wonder they preferred a murderer to the Prince of peace. Christ himself had said, If ye were of the world, the world would love its own. Like cleaves to like: hence we need not be surprised to find the vilest things still preferred to Christ, his kingdom, and his salvation.
1. IT is not easy to give the character of Pilate. From the manner of his conduct, we scarcely can tell when he is in jest or in earnest. He appears to have been fully convinced of the innocence of Christ; and that the Jews, through envy and malice, desired his destruction. On this ground he should have released him; but he was afraid to offend the Jews. He knew they were an uneasy, factious, and seditious people; and he was afraid to irritate them. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum! was no motto of his. For fear of the clamours of this bad people, he permitted all the forms and requisitions of justice to be outraged, and abandoned the most innocent Jesus to their rage and malice. In this case he knew what was truth, but did not follow its dictates; and he as hastily abandoned the author of it as he did the question he had asked concerning it. Pilate, it is true, was disposed to pity-the Jews were full of malice and cruelty. They both, however, joined in the murder of our Lord. The most that we can say for Pilate is, that he was disposed to justice, but was not inclined to hazard his comfort or safety in doing it. He was an easy, pliable man, who had no objection to do a right thing if it should cost him no trouble; but he felt no disposition to make any sacrifice, even in behalf of innocence, righteousness, and truth. In all the business Pilate showed that he was not a good man; and the Jews proved that they were of their father, the devil. See Joh 19:8.
2. As Dr. Lightfoot has entered into a regular examination of when and how the Jews lost the power of life and death in criminal cases, it may be necessary to lay before the reader a copious abstract of his researches on this subject, founded on Joh 18:31.
“It cannot be denied that all capital judgment, or sentence upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they oftentimes themselves confess. But how came this to pass? It is commonly received that the Romans, at this time the Jews’ lords and masters, had taken from all their courts a power and capacity of judging the capital matters. Let us superadd a few things here. Rabh Cahna saith, When R. Ismael bar Jose lay sick, they sent to him, saying, Pray, sir, tell us two or three things which thou didst once tell us in the name of thy Father. He saith to them, A hundred and fourscore years before the destruction of the temple, the wicked kingdom (the Roman empire) reigned over Israel, fourscore years before the destruction of the temple, they (the fathers of the Sanhedrin) determined about the uncleanness of the heathen land, and about glass vessels. Forty years before the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrin removed and sat in the Taberne. What is the meaning of this tradition? Rabbi Isaac bar Abdimi saith, They did not judge judgments of mulcts. The gloss is, Those are the judgments about fining any that offered violence, that entice a maid, and the price of a servant. When, therefore, they did not sit in the room Gazith, they did not judge about these things, and so those judgments about mulcts or fines ceased. Avodoh Zarah. fol. 82. Here we have one part of their judiciary power lost; not taken away from them by the Romans, but falling of itself, as it were, out of the hands of the Sanhedrin. Nor did the Romans indeed take away their power of judging in capital matters; but they, by their own oscitancy, supine and unreasonable lenity, lost it themselves, for so the Gemara goes on: Rabh Hachman bar Isaac saith, Let him not say that they did not judge judgments of mulcts, for they did not judge capital judgments either. And whence comes this? When they saw that so many murders and homicides multiplied upon them that they could not well judge and call them to account, they said, It is better for us that we remove from place to place; for how can we otherwise (sitting here and not punishing them) not contract guilt upon ourselves?
“They thought themselves obliged to punish murderers while they sat in the room Gazith, for the place itself engaged them to it. They are the words of the Gemarists, upon which the gloss. The room Gazith was half of it within, and half of it without, the holy place. The reason of which was, that it was requisite that the council should sit near the Divine Majesty. Hence it is that they say, Whoever constitutes an unfit judge is as if he planted a grove by the altar of the Lord, as it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee; and it follows presently after, Thou shalt not plant thee a grove near the altar of the Lord thy God, De 16:18; De 16:21. They removed therefore from Gazith, and sat in the Taberne; now though the Taberne were upon the mountain of the temple, yet they did not sit so near the Divine Majesty there as they did when they sat in the room Gazith.
“Let us now in order put the whole matter together.
“I. The Sanhedrin were most stupidly and unreasonably remiss in their punishment of capital offenders; going upon this reason especially, that they counted it so horrible a thing to put an Israelite to death. Forsooth, he is of the seed of Abraham, of the blood and stock of Israel, and you must have a care how you touch such a one!
“R. Eliezer bar Simeon had laid hold on some thieves. R. Joshua bar Korchah sent to him, saying, O thou vinegar, the son of good wine! (i.e. O thou wicked son of a good father!) how long wilt thou deliver the people of God to the slaughter! He answered and said, I root the thorns out of the vineyard. To whom the other: Let the Lord of the vineyard come and root them out himself. Bava Meziah, fol. 83, 2. It is worth noting, that the very thieves of Israel are the people of God; and they must not be touched by any man, but referred to the judgment of God himself!
“When R. Ismael bar R. Jose was constituted a magistrate by the king, there happened some such thing to him; for Elias himself rebuked him, saying, How long wilt thou deliver over the people of God to slaughter! Ibid. fol. 64, 1. Hence that which we alleged elsewhere: The Sanhedrin that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years, is termed a destroyer. R. Eliezer ben Azariah saith it is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years. Maccoth, fol. 7, 1.
“II. It is obvious to any one how this foolish remissness, and letting loose the reins of judgment, would soon increase the numbers of robbers, murderers, and all kinds of wickedness; and indeed they did so abundantly multiply that the Sanhedrin neither could nor durst, as it ought, call the criminals to account. The law slept, while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and punitive justice was so out of countenance that as to uncertain murders they made no search, and against certain ones they framed no judgement. Since the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer ceased. Sotoh, fol. 47, 1. And in the place before quoted in Avodah: When they saw the numbers of murderers so greatly increase that they could not sit in judgment upon them, they said, Let us remove, c., fol. 8, 2. So in the case of adultery, which we also observed in our notes on Joh 8:3-11. Since the time that adultery so openly advanced, under the second temple, they left off trying the adultress by the bitter water, c. Mainaon. in Sotoh, cap. 3.
“So that, we see, the liberty of judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by the Romans than the beheading of the heifer, or the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter waters, was taken away by them, which no one will affirm. It is a tradition of R. Chaia, from the day wherein the temple was destroyed, though the Sanhedrin ceased, yet the four kinds of death (which were wont to be inflicted by the Sanhedrin) did not cease. For he that had deserved to be stoned to death, either fell off from some house, or some wild beast tore and devoured him. He that had deserved burning, either fell into some fire, or some serpent bit him. He that had deserved to be slain (i.e. with the sword) was either delivered into the hands of some heathen king, or was murdered by robbers. He that had deserved strangling, was either drowned in some river, or choked by a squinancy.
“This must be observed from the evangelists, that when they had Christ in examination in the palace of the high priest all night, in the morning the whole Sanhedrin met that they might pass sentence of death upon him. Where then was this that they met? Questionless in the room Gazith-at least if they adhered to their own rules and constitutions: Thither they betook themselves sometimes upon urgent necessity. The gloss before quoted excepts only the case of murder, with which, amongst all their false accusations, they never charged Christ.
“But, however, suppose it were granted that the great council met either in the Taberne, or some other place, (which yet agreed by no means with their own tradition,) did they deal truly, and as the matter really and indeed was, with Pilate, when they tell him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death? He had said to them, Take ye him and judge him according to your laws. We have indeed judged and condemned him, but we cannot put any one to death. Was this that they said in fact true? How came they then to stone the proto-martyr Stephen? How came they to stone Ben Sarda at Lydda? Hieros. Sanhed. fol. 25, 4. How came they to burn the priest’s daughter alive that was taken in adultery? Bab. Sanhed. fol. 52, 1, and 51, 1. It is probable that they had not put any one to death as yet, since the time that they had removed out of Gazith, and so might the easier persuade Pilate in that case. But their great design was to throw off the odium of Christ’s death from themselves at least among the vulgar crowd fearing them, if the council should have decreed his execution. They seek this evasion, therefore, which did not altogether want some colour and pretext of truth; and it succeeded according to what they desired. Divine Providence so ordering it as the evangelist intimates, Joh 18:32, That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake signifying what death he should die: that is, be crucified according to the custom of the Romans. While I am upon this thought, I cannot but reflect upon that passage, than which nothing is more worthy observation in the whole description of the Roman beast in the Revelation, Re 13:4. The dragon which gave power to the beast. We cannot say this of the Assyrian, Babylonish, or any other monarchy; for the Holy Scriptures do not say it. But reason dictates, and the event itself tells us, that there was something acted by the Roman empire in behalf of the dragon, which was not compatible with any other, that is, the putting of the Son of God to death. Which thing we must remember as often as we recite that article of our creed, ‘He suffered under Pontius Pilate,’ that is, was put to death by the Roman empire,”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But such was the malice of his adversaries, that though Barabbas was one that had committed murder in an insurrection, yet they choose him rather than Christ.
See Poole on “Mat 27:15“, and following verses to Mat 27:18.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then cried they all again,…. For it seems that Pilate had made this proposal once before, and that this was the second time, though not mentioned; yet some copies, and the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, leave out the word “again”: they all, priests and people, in a very clamorous manner, cried out as one man, with one united voice, all at once;
saying, not this man, but Barabbas; now Barabbas was a robber; who was an emblem of God’s elect in a state of nature, released and set free when Christ was condemned. These, as he, many of them at least, are notorious sinners, the chief of sinners, robbers and murderers; who have robbed God of his glory, and destroyed themselves; are prisoners, concluded in sin and unbelief, and shut up in the law, and in a pit, wherein is no water, in their natural state; and were, as this man, worthy of death, and by nature children of wrath; and yet children of God by adopting grace, as his name Bar Abba signifies, “the son of the father”: these, though such criminals, and so deserving of punishment, were let go free, when Christ was taken, condemned, and died; and which was according to the wise and secret counsel of Jehovah, and is a large discovery of divine grace; and what lays those who are released under the greatest obligations to live to him, who suffered for them, in their room and stead.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Cried out (). First aorist active of , old and rare verb from , outcry (Mt 25:6), as in Mt 12:19.
Not this man ( ). Contemptuous use of . The priests put the crowd up to this choice (Mr 15:11) and Pilate offered the alternative (Mt 27:17, one MS. actually gives Jesus as the name of Barabbas also). The name in Aramaic simply means son of a father.
A robber (). Old word from , to plunder, and so a brigand and possibly the leader of the band to which the two robbers belonged who were crucified with Jesus. Luke terms him an insurgent and murderer (Luke 23:19; Luke 23:25). They chose Barabbas in preference to Jesus and apparently Jesus died on the very cross planned for Barabbas.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Cried [] . Peculiarly of a loud, importunate cry; a shout. Plato uses it of the howling of a dog : “The yelping hound, howling [] at her Lord” (” Republic, ” 607). Others, of the cries of spectators in the theaters and of the croak of a raven. See on Mt 14:22.
Again. Assuming John’s recollection of a previous “crying out,” which he has not recorded.
Robber [] . See on Mt 26:55; Mr 11:17; Luk 10:30. Matt. calls him a “notable prisoner” (xxvii. 16). Mark states that he had made insurrection, and had committed murder (xv. 7), speaking of the insurrection as a well – known event. Luke says, “for some insurrection (stasin tina) that had arisen in the city, and for murder” (xxiii. 19). Writing for Gentiles, Luke would not refer to the event as something familiar. Bandits of this kind were numerous in the neighborhood of Jerusalem under the Roman dominion. Their leaders were well known. Josephus describes them by the same word which Matthew uses, ejpishmoi, notable. Their depredations were often committed under patriotic pretenses, so that Barabas might have had influential friends among the people. ===Joh19
CHAPTER XIX
1 – 3. Compare Mt 27:26 – 30; Mr 14:15 – 19.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then cried they all again, saying,” (ekraugasan oun palin legontes) “Then they cried aloud again, repeatedly saying,” shouting, screaming, in hysterical cries, led by the cheer-leading chief priests and elders, Mat 27:20; Mar 15:11.
2) “Not this man, but Barabbas.” (me touton alla ton Barabban) “Release not this one but the Barabbas,” the indicted insurrectionist and murderer, Mat 27:21-22; Mar 15:11; Luk 23:18-19. He was by name “The son of a father, or of a Rabbi.”
3) “Now Barabbas was a robber.” (hen de Barabbas lestes) “Now Barabbas was (existed as) a robber,” as well as a murderer, a notable prisoner, Mat 27:7. They thus voted to free the guilty and crucify the innocent, a willful act of perverting justice in human judgment, yet Ecc 12:13-14; Mat 12:36-37 are yet to be faced by them.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(40) Then cried they all again.St. John has not recorded any clamour before, but implies that of Mar. 15:8, and Luk. 23:5-10.
Now Barabbas was a robber.Comp. Note on Joh. 10:1. The word includes the meaning of unrestrained violence, which often leads to bloodshed (Mar. 15:7; Luk. 23:19), and is thus used in a striking parallel in Sophocles:
And him, so rumour runs, a robber band
Of aliens slew.
(dipus Rex., 724. Plumptres Translation.)
There is a solemn emphasis given to the context by the abrupt brevity of the sentence. (Comp. Joh. 11:35; Joh. 13:30; see also Act. 3:14.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘They therefore cried out again, saying, “Not this man but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a brigand.’
Pilate’s desperate attempt had failed, as it had to. How could he even think that the leaders would allow the people to call for the freedom of the man they were determined to see die. He was clearly in a bemused state.
So they cried for Barabbas instead. And John says firmly and succintly, ‘now Barabbas was a brigand’. This did not exclude the fact that he was a revolutionary. Revolutionaries often also act as brigands. The main stress is on the fact that his behaviour was such that it was outside the law, and violent.
John has summarised the matter very quickly. His concern has been to show that an innocent peaceful Jesus was unfairly treated by the justice of Rome, by a man who had later himself been deposed from office by Rome itself. And that He was in fact totally innocent, and acknowledged by the judge as being so. And that His conviction was unfair. That indeed He was more than innocent. That he was the bringer of truth from God. And that the one they had chosen was in contrast, a brigand, a murdering, thieving no-good who would continue to be so.
As we will continue to see in the following chapter it is Jesus’ innocence that is being stressed. The main reason for this is in order to demonstrate that He was the unblemished Lamb (Exo 12:5 and often). But a secondary purpose may well have been to assure readers, and indeed the Roman Empire itself, that Jesus was no enemy of Rome and was not guilty of any criminal offence, and that the Romans had no need to be afraid of Christians.
It was surely in God’s purpose that the brigand had the name that he had. Bar-abbas means ‘son of Abba’, ‘son of a father’. John’s Gospel knows two fathers. One the Father, the other ‘your father the devil’. They asked for the release of the son of the devil and demanded death for the Son of the Father. How better could they show which side they were on?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
REFLECTIONS
Oh! Gethsemane! sacred, hallowed spot! Did Jesus oft-times resort thither with his disciples? And wilt thou now, O Lord, by thy sweet Spirit, aid my meditations, that I may take the wing of faith, and often traverse over the solemn ground? It was a garden in which the first Adam began to break through the fence of God’s holy plantation. And in a garden the second Adam, so called, shall begin the soul-travail of sorrow, to do away the effects of it. And, oh! what humiliation, what agonies, what conflicts in the arduous work? Oh! how vast the glory, when smiting to the earth his enemies, the Lord Jesus proved his Godhead by the breath of his mouth! Sweetly do I see thee, Lord, by faith, going forth a willing sacrifice. Lo! I come! said Jesus. So come, Lord, now, by grace!
Hail, thou King of Zion, for thou hast here most blessedly borne testimony to this glorious truth. Then as a King do thou reign and rule over thy Church, thy people, both in heaven and earth. And let my soul continually discover the goings of my God and King, in his sanctuary. Surely, dear Lord, it is thine, both by nature, providence, grace, and glory, to maintain and order, to regulate and appoint, to establish and confirm thy royal laws, and the government of thy kingdom, in the hearts and minds of all thy people, whom thou hast made willing in the day of thy power! Reign thou, and rule in me, the Lord of life and glory! Amen.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
Ver. 40. Now Barabbas was a robber ] And a murderer too, Act 3:14 , yet preferred before Christ, who was also crucified in the midst of two thieves, as the worst of the three. Thus he was peccatorum maximus, greatest of sinners, both by imputation, for he bore our sins, which were all made to meet upon him, Isa 53:6 , and by reputation, for he was “numbered with the transgressors,”Isa 53:12Isa 53:12 , and made “his grave with the wicked,”Isa 53:9Isa 53:9 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
40. ] They have not before cried out in this narrative: so that some circumstances must be pre-supposed which are not here related: unless Joh 18:30-31 be referred to.
. ., in Mar 15:7 and Luk 23:19 , a rioter; but doubtless also a robber, as such men are frequently found foremost in civil uproar. There is a solemn irony in these words of the Apostle a Robber! See the contrast strongly brought out, Act 3:14 . Luthardt (after Krafft) remarks on the parallelism with Lev 16:5-10 . Thus was Jesus “the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, to be offered for a sin-offering.” See the same idea expanded by Mr. Wratislaw, in the first of the sermons in his volume.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
cried = cried aloud, shouted. Greek kraugazo. Compare Joh 19:6, Joh 19:15. Act 22:23.
this Man = this fellow. Compare Joh 7:27; Joh 9:29.
Barabbas. Aramaic. App-94.
robber = bandit, highway robber. Greek. Mates. Compare Mar 11:17; Mar 14:48; Mar 15:27. Not kleptes. thief. The two words together in Joh 10:1, Joh 10:8. They chose the robber, and the robber has ruled over them to this day.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
40.] They have not before cried out in this narrative: so that some circumstances must be pre-supposed which are not here related: unless Joh 18:30-31 be referred to.
. .,-in Mar 15:7 and Luk 23:19, a rioter;-but doubtless also a robber, as such men are frequently found foremost in civil uproar. There is a solemn irony in these words of the Apostle-a Robber! See the contrast strongly brought out, Act 3:14. Luthardt (after Krafft) remarks on the parallelism with Lev 16:5-10. Thus was Jesus the goat upon which the Lords lot fell, to be offered for a sin-offering. See the same idea expanded by Mr. Wratislaw, in the first of the sermons in his volume.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 18:40
Joh 18:40
They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.-Barabbas had excited an insurrection against the Roman authorities and had in the insurrection been guilty of both murder and robbery. They demand him in preference to Jesus. The difficulty of the Jews in formulating charges against Jesus, and the utter disregard of the Jews of justice arose from this: the crimes against the Roman law were not crimes under their law. What the Romans regarded as high crimes the Jews at heart approved. The crime against the Jewish law was that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. The Jews at heart would gladly have accepted a king that would deliver them from Roman rule. In his trial, the singular thing was: sins of a man tried in the lower court for blasphemy in making himself the Son of God and in the appeal to the higher court the charge of claiming to be a king as treason against Caesar is substituted. It is not strange that a specific charge was not made against him, although it is once stated that he made himself obnoxious to their law by making himself the Son of God. (Joh 19:7).
Questions on John Chapter Eighteen
E.M. Zerr
1. To what place did Jesus go with his disciples?
2. Why did Judas know this place?
3. With whom did he come here now?
4. With what did he come?
5. From what authorities did these men come?
6. What did Jesus know?
7. Repeat his question to the band.
8. And their answer.
9. Also the remark of Jesus.
10. Who was standing with the mob?
11. What caused them to fall to the ground?
12. State the question that was repeated.
13. Tell his words upon their reply.
14. This was to fulfill what?
15. Who resorted to violence now?
16. By whom was he rebuked?
17. State his learning on the matter.
18. What was done then?
19. To whom did they lead Jesus?
20. Why to this man?
21. What had the high priest done before this?
22. Who followed Jesus?
23. Why did the second one go into the palace?
24. State where Peter stood.
25. How was he admitted?
26. Who spoke to him?
27. What was the subject of the conversation?
28. Tell what Peter said.
29. What were the conditions in nature at this time?
30. Of what did the high priest inquire?
31. Was this a secret subject?
32. How did Jesus criticize the high priest?
33. Tell what was done to Jesus then.
34. On what ground was it done?
35. Repeat the demand of Jesus.
36. Before what personage is Jesus now?
37. In what condition was he sent here?
38. What was again said to Peter?
39. And what answer?
40. Who spoke to him next?
41. Where had he seen him?
42. Tell what Peter did again.
43. What happened then?
44. To where did they lead Jesus then?
45. It was at what time?
46. Why did the Jews not enter this place ?
47. Who presided here?
48. What question did he ask?
49. Did they answer direct?
50. What did Pilate tell them to do?
51. Upon what pretense did they refuse?
52. This fulfilled what?
53. To whom did Pilate next speak?
54. Repeat his question.
55. And the question of Jesus to him.
56. Was Pilate a Jew?
57. What people had delivered Jesus?
58. Tell on what subject Jesus then spoke.
59. What citizens have right to fight?
60. And is this for offense or defense?
61. State the next question of Pilate.
62. And the answer.
63. Of what did Pilate then ask?
64. What answer did he receive?
65. Tell what he then said to the Jews.
66. To what custom did he then refer?
67. What was his proposition?
68. This brought what protest from them?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Mat 27:16, Mat 27:26, Mar 15:7, Mar 15:15, Luk 23:18, Luk 23:19, Luk 23:25, Act 3:13, Act 3:14
Reciprocal: Isa 49:7 – to him whom man despiseth Isa 53:2 – he hath no Eze 18:10 – that is Mic 3:2 – love Mat 23:24 – General Mat 27:20 – should Mar 15:6 – General Mar 15:11 – General Act 7:35 – Moses
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
The plan of Pilate did not work. The people did not wish to abandon their custom either, so they gave their unanimous voice that the release was to be given to Barabbas who was a robber and murderer (Luk 23:18-19).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 18:40. They cried out therefore again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. The word again is here peculiarly worthy of notice. No previous cry of the Jews had been mentioned by the Evangelist; and, had his story been constructed merely to illustrate an idea, he certainly would not have spoken of a second cry when he had said nothing of a first. The word can only be a historical reminiscence in the writers own mind. He knew that the Jews had cried out before, although he had not thought it necessary to mention it. Now, therefore, when a cry was to be spoken of, which he remembers was a second one, an indication that it was so comes naturally from his pen, They cried out therefore again. The cry was, Not this man but Barabbas; and the guilty nature of the cry is immediately intensified by a brief but emphatic statement, designed far more to bring out this guilt than to make us acquainted with a fact of history.
Now Barabbas was a robber. A robber! and yet they preferred him to the holy Jesus, to the Only-Begotten of the Father, to their King!
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
18:40 Then {e} cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
(e) Literally, “made a great and foul voice”.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
John described Barabbas as a robber (Gr. lestes, lit. one who seizes plunder). However, Barabbas seems also to have participated in bloody insurrection as a terrorist and guerrilla fighter (cf. Mar 15:7). The chief priests normally had nothing to do with Zealots and other freedom fighters who sought to overthrow the Roman yoke violently. However here they preferred such an individual to Jesus who had not actively opposed Rome but whom they regarded as a threat to their security. The irony of their decision is obvious to the reader and must also have been obvious to Pilate. Evidently Barabbas had a popular following among the people, as Jesus did, but for different reasons.
The release of a proven enemy of Rome, which John did not record, showed Pilate’s poor judgment. This decision would not have stood him in good stead with his superiors. Evidently it was the pressure of the Jewish mob that encouraged him to act against his own as well as Jesus’ interests.