Who was Barabbas in the Bible?

Understanding Matthew 27:15-16

Barabbas appears in all four Gospels, but only for a few verses. Yet his story is one of the most theologically loaded moments in the Passion narrative — a guilty man goes free while an innocent man takes his place. It is the gospel in miniature, played out in real time before a Roman governor.

Who was Barabbas?

The Gospels provide these details:

• Matthew 27:16: 'A well-known prisoner' — Barabbas was notorious, not obscure
• Mark 15:7: 'A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising' — he was part of a political rebellion and had killed someone during it
• Luke 23:19: 'Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder'
• John 18:40: 'Barabbas had taken part in an uprising' (some translations: 'Barabbas was a robber/bandit' — the Greek lestes can mean revolutionary/bandit)

Barabbas was not a petty thief. He was a violent insurrectionist — someone who used force against Roman occupation. In first-century Judea, this made him simultaneously a criminal in Roman eyes and potentially a folk hero in Jewish eyes. The zealot movement attracted Jews who believed God's kingdom would come through armed resistance against Rome.

The name

Barabbas is Aramaic: Bar-abba, meaning 'son of the father.' Some early manuscripts of Matthew (notably those known to the scholar Origen, c. 230 AD) give his full name as 'Jesus Barabbas' — Jesus, son of the father.

If this reading is original, the irony is staggering: Pilate offered the crowd a choice between two men named Jesus — one who was 'son of the father' in name only, and one who was the Son of the Father in reality. Most modern scholars consider this reading possibly authentic; it may have been removed by later scribes who found it disrespectful to give the name 'Jesus' to a criminal.

The custom

Pilate followed a custom of releasing one prisoner during Passover — a goodwill gesture to the occupied population. No Roman source outside the Gospels confirms this specific practice in Judea, but analogous prisoner releases during festivals are documented elsewhere in the Roman Empire (e.g., a papyrus from Egypt, c. 85 AD, records a governor releasing a prisoner 'for the crowd').

Pilate's strategy was transparent: he hoped the crowd would choose Jesus of Nazareth, allowing him to release a man he believed was innocent (Luke 23:4: 'I find no basis for a charge against this man') without directly defying the religious authorities who had delivered Jesus to him.

The crowd's choice

'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' asked the governor. 'Barabbas,' they answered. 'What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?' Pilate asked. They all answered, 'Crucify him!' (Matthew 27:21-22).

The chief priests and elders 'persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed' (Matthew 27:20). Mark adds that the chief priests 'stirred up the crowd' (Mark 15:11).

The crowd chose a murderer over the Messiah. They chose political violence over the Prince of Peace. They chose a man who killed for the kingdom he wanted over the man who would die for the kingdom God was building.

Pilate's response

'When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"' (Matthew 27:24).

Pilate's hand-washing was a Jewish ritual gesture (Deuteronomy 21:6-7), not a Roman one — suggesting either cultural awareness or dramatic irony on Matthew's part. Regardless, washing his hands did not absolve Pilate. He had the authority to release Jesus and chose not to exercise it. Moral responsibility cannot be washed away by theatrical gestures.

'Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified' (Matthew 27:26).

The theological significance

The Barabbas exchange is the most vivid illustration of substitutionary atonement in the entire Bible — not as theology but as lived event:

1. A guilty man goes free: Barabbas was a convicted murderer and insurrectionist. He deserved death under Roman law. He was released.
2. An innocent man takes his place: Jesus was declared innocent three times by Pilate (Luke 23:4, 14, 22). He was condemned.
3. The exchange is literal: Barabbas was in the cell, scheduled for execution. Jesus took his cross. This is substitution in its rawest form — one man dying in the place another man was supposed to die.

Every Christian is Barabbas. That is the theological point. Every person stands guilty before God's justice, and Jesus takes the penalty that was rightfully theirs. 'God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Corinthians 5:21).

What happened to Barabbas?

The Bible says nothing about Barabbas after his release. He walked out of Roman custody and disappears from the historical record. Tradition and fiction have imagined various outcomes — some stories have him at the crucifixion watching Jesus die on his cross, others have him returning to rebellion, others have him eventually becoming a Christian. None of this is recorded.

The silence may be the point. Barabbas represents every person who has been given undeserved freedom — what you do with that freedom is your story to write.

Why it matters

The Barabbas episode forces a question that Pilate asked and every person must eventually answer: 'What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?' (Matthew 27:22). The crowd answered 'Crucify him.' History's most consequential question received history's most consequential wrong answer — and from it came the salvation of the world. God used humanity's worst decision to accomplish His greatest act of love.