Who Was The "Crowd" that Demanded Barabbas be Released Instead of Jesus?
I recently saw this meme (again) on Facebook:
It got me thinking…
The Barabbas incident is a strange story in the Bible if you don’t read carefully, because just a few days before the event, the “crowd” was very interested in Jesus and not trying to kill Him and not calling for His death. Some were worshiping Him, and some were “astonished” at His teachings, but the only talk of killing Him was coming from the religious leaders, not the “crowd”.
I was taught in church that the crowd at the Barabbas incident was basically a bunch of “normal” or “average” people who hated Jesus so much that they demanded a hardened criminal be released and that God’s son be put to death instead.
The lesson that followed that idea was that ALL people are so INHERENTLY evil and hate the truth so much that they’d do the same thing (and with the implication that each person in the crowd had that personal belief and hatred without any other outside influence). Because those were just “normal” or “average” people.
Seeing the meme again made me wonder, “Is any of that true?”
Again, mere days before, the “crowd” had no interest in killing Jesus.
I decided to take a look at the relevant scripture passages to try and figure out: (1) who made up the crowd; (2) whether this was a situation in which crowd dynamics might have been in play (i.e. was it a mob mentality); and (3) was there any lying or manipulation which might have influenced or tricked the crowd into taking their insane position.
I knew part of the answer already - which is what made me wonder about the rest of it.
Question: Is it POSSIBLE that the "crowd" calling for Barabbas to be released was made up mostly of religious leaders and those loyal to the religious leaders?
The day of the triumphal entry, Matthew tells us:
"When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they FEARED THE CROWDS, because [the crowd] held [Jesus] to be a prophet."
If the “crowds” believed Jesus to be a prophet (undoubtedly of their God), those “crowds” would NOT have supported the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.
The day after the triumphal entry - which is 4 days before the crucifixion if I'm counting right - Mark tells us:
"And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared [Jesus], because ALL THE CROWD was astonished at his teaching."
Again, the “crowd” was pro-Jesus (and thus would have been anti-Barabbas).
On about the same day, Matthew tells us:
"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill [Jesus]. But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an UPROAR AMONG THE PEOPLE.”
It’s clear from the gospel narratives over an extended period of time that the people who wanted Jesus dead were the religious leaders, NOT the “average” or “normal” people.
It’s not difficult to understand why - Jesus was challenging the power and control of those religious leaders. The vast majority of the highly offensive things Jesus said were directed at hypocritical religious leaders, NOT the “average” or “normal” people. Jesus was typically quite kind to the “average” or “normal” people. There’s no evidence that Jesus made the “average” or “normal” people angry enough to want Him dead.
The fact remains that Jesus’ ministry DREW VERY LARGE NUMBERS of “average” or “normal” people. They wanted to hear His message. A significant number of them did more than just listen - they started to follow Him, obey His teachings, etc…
It sure looks to me like one of two things happened (perhaps a bit of both]:
1: Religious leaders (who DID hate the truth) lied to and manipulated the crowd (including “normal” or “average” people) into changing their position;
or
2: The "crowd" at the Barabbas incident wasn't average people, but rather the religious leaders (who already wanted Jesus dead) and those close to them.
------
Here’s the evidence showing the the religious leaders lied to and manipulated the “crowd” (emphasis added):
"Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus."
"And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead."
The “crowd” does not appear to have been predisposed to hate Jesus or to demand Jesus’ death, or to demand the release of Barabbas. The “crowd” had to be persuaded by the religious leaders.
HOW did the religious leaders persuade the “crowd” against Jesus?
We find that mixed in the evidence to support that idea that much of the “crowd” was made up of religious leaders (and probably the followers of those religious leaders). Luke gives us more detail about the “crowd” at the Barabbas incident (emphasis added):
"... the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes. And THEY led him away to their council...
Then the whole company of THEM arose and brought him before Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.”...
Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds:
[Note: No crowds are mentioned in the passage before that sentence. What is mentioned in the passage is a “whole company” of assembly of the elders, chief priests, and scribes. That presumably was enough to be described as a “crowd”. More after the quotation].
“I find no guilt in this man.” But they were urgent, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place.”
When Pilate… learned that [Jesus] belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, [Pilate] sent [Jesus] over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.
[Note: even Herod wanted to meet Jesus. He had no interest in killing Jesus].
So [Herod] questioned [Jesus] at some length, but [Jesus] made no answer.
The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing [Jesus]... And Herod... sent [Jesus] back to Pilate.
Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him...
But they all cried out together, “Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas”— a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder.”
The Sanhedrin was apparently the “assembly of elders” and the “rulers” referred to by Luke. There were apparently 71 elders in that assembly.
If a bunch of supporters/followers of those Sanhedrin members joined them, that would be enough to make up a “crowd”.
The “Got Questions” website notes:
"… it’s quite possible that the crowd gathered before Pilate at that early hour had been assembled and suborned by the Jewish leaders."
https://www.gotquestions.org/Crucify-Him.html
I think the evidence from the applicable passages supports that position - that the “crowd” at the Barabbas incident was made up primarily of those “assembled and suborned” by the assembly of elders, rulers, chief priests, and scribes.
Anyone else in the “crowd” was “persuaded” and “stirred up” by the lies and manipulations of the chief priests and elders.
And notice that the Romans… the ROMANS… had no interest in killing Jesus. The same Romans who seem to have took pleasure in killing people and certainly did not hesitate to kill anyone they deemed a threat.
It should be noted that after the Barabbas incident - and as Jesus is going to the cross - Luke tells us:
“And there followed [Jesus] a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him.”
A MULTITUDE (not merely a “crowd”, apparently) of the “normal” and “average” people were upset by Jesus being sentenced to death. Just as the chief priests, scribes, and elders had feared.
When church leaders preach on the relevant passages, (in my experience) the focus is usually on equating the “crowd” at the Barabbas incident with any individual “normal” or “average” person and telling the audience how they’re all like the people in the “crowd” (i.e. “you’d have supported killing Jesus”). Yet most of the “normal” or “average” people around before and after the Barabbas incident seem to have been pro-Jesus (whether they were authentic followers or not is a different matter).
I don’t think that any lesson about the “average” or “normal” individual person can be learned from the Barabbas incident, with one exception - and that is the behavior of individuals in crowds.
And individuals in crowds are under a lot of psychological pressure to conform to what the majority of people in the crowd are doing. To quote “K” from the classic movie, “Men In Black”:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
An interesting final comment about crowds and people thinking/acting in groups from the article linked below. Of the members of the “crowd” at the Barabbas incident who were not already closely aligned with the Sanhedrin, this appears to me to at least partially explain what happened. It’s obviously not a good thing, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that those people supported the release of Barabbas and the killing of Jesus primarily because they “hated the truth”. That appears to have very little, if anything to do with what happened in that “crowd”.
"The lesson of the Holocaust - and of covid - isn't that Germans… or people of the 21st Century are uniquely gullible or evil. It's that for most people, "morality" is not a matter of principle, but rather of adopting what they perceive to be the dominant group ideology - even if that ideology is marked by wanton irrationality or brutal inhumanity.
Indeed, as in certain cults or gangs, the brutality or irrationality of the acts or beliefs required to signal group inclusion further entrench people into the ideology, rather than repel them, a kind of perverse sunk cost fallacy writ large.
So, yes, if you're a typical person… it is overwhelmingly likely that you would have been a Nazi if you were born in Nazi Germany. If you cheered along lockdowns and mandates [during covid], that likelihood approaches certainty.
Repent."
So yes, if you or I had happened to be roped into being in the “crowd” at the Barabbas incident and lied to/manipulated by the chief priests and elders, then you or I would likely have demanded the release of Barabbas and the death of Jesus.
But that is quite different from wanting or intending that outcome when you’re not in that crowd and not being influenced by the lies and manipulations of leaders.