Very little is known to us regarding Barabbas, and little more can be surmised. What we know is reducible to this: He was involved in an insurrection in Jerusalem in the course of which one or more murders occurred. He was imprisoned and awaiting trial before Pilate at the time Jesus was brought for trial. His crimes, if proven, were fully deserving of crucifixion according to Roman law, but Pilate opted to release him as part of a traditional action done in honor of the Passover. That’s it. That’s what we know.

Somewhat more can perhaps be inferred regarding this man, but not a great deal. We might suppose, given his last name, that he was the son of a rabbi. Of course, he could as easily have simply taken the name for himself in pursuit of his insurrectionist goals. After all, son of Joe doesn’t really have that much cachet, but son of the Father? Son of the Master? Yes! That’s a name people will follow. Again, we cannot know which is the case, or whether there is yet another explanation.

Here’s a somewhat stronger inference we might make based on John’s accounting: Whether or not he was involved in an insurrection, it would seem that this was an opportunity rather than a purpose in his view. I am thoroughly struck by John’s description of this man. Where the others have noted his activities might have had some redeeming value in the sight of his countrymen (which might explain their choice of him over Jesus of Nazareth), John offers no such benefit to the man. He was not an insurrectionist, as John describes him, no hero of the revolution. He was a brigand, a man given to violence in pursuit of robbery. It was this, and this alone, that had brought him up on charges of murder. It was this, and this alone, that motivated the man. He was that despicable. Yet, the people chose him over their true Messiah.

This is, of course, the main point of his being brought up in any of the gospels, that the people, given a choice between the Messiah of God’s choosing, and a self-appointed rebel leader, went with the self-appointed one. We may marvel at the choice, but it’s not really all that inexplicable. In spite of the few years Jesus had been teaching, it’s clear that even amongst His apostles the misconceptions about the nature of God’s Messiah hadn’t really changed. They were still looking for a warrior, a king who would chase Rome out from Israel’s borders by main force. And, Jesus, for all His miracles and His claims, would not take upon Himself the role the people cast for Him. Meanwhile, here was Barabbas who, though a man of violence with no morals, had already shown himself willing to take the fight to the Romans.

One can see how the crowds could be manipulated into preferring the rebel. The suicidal nature of opposing Rome with the likes of him would not register, only the romanticized notion of Israel ascendant. And, there was just enough of religion left to them to still suppose that God would be with them in the endeavor, even with such a leader.

So far as can be discerned, it would seem Barabbas also refused the proffered mantle. He accepted his freedom, and quite probably made himself particularly scarce, lest Pilate simply decide to arrest him again after the feast (a thing he might well have done given opportunity). I again find John’s description of the man telling. He may well have been part of an uprising, but in the final analysis, he was no rebel. He was a brigand and nothing more.