from Google Images
It is reasonable that Pilate would assume the chief priests and the people would desire Jesus’ release instead of Barabbas, because the latter was really guilty of the charges the authorities levied falsely against Jesus. Pilate knew the high priests understood Jesus wasn’t really guilty of the charges they made against him, so why wouldn’t they reject one who was really guilty of the accusations they made against Jesus?
Therefore, willing to release Jesus, whom he knew was innocent of insurrection, Pilate kept trying to convince the Jewish authorities to accept the verdict (Luke 23:20). Nevertheless, everyone cried out to crucify Jesus and release Barabbas. This is the first time the Gospel narratives mention that the Jewish authorities actually wanted Jesus to be crucified. According to all four Gospels, the demand for crucifixion was not made until Pilate had proposed to release Jesus on account of the feast.
In Luke 23:22 Pilate again tried to release Jesus, saying he would chastise (G3811) him and let him go (cf. Luke 23:16). Nevertheless, as I concluded in a previous study, Pilate’s method of chastisement (G3811) probably included scourging (G3146) Jesus, as we understand the meaning today. Furthermore, Luke tells us the Jewish authorities insisted that Pilate crucify Jesus (Luke 23:23). The Gospel of John records that they threatened Pilate, saying he wasn’t a friend of Caesar, if he released him (John 19:12). Therefore, in view of the fact that Pilate believed he was facing a potential riot, if he didn’t give them what they demanded, he conceded to the Jewish authorities’ desires (Luke 23:23-24).
Notwithstanding, we must ask why Pilate would capitulate to Jewish demands. He could have delayed long enough to place his men in the crowd, as he had done a year earlier to prevent an uprising. So, the fact he faced a potential riot can’t be the real reason he gave in to the Jews. The fact is that Pilate became procurator of Judea on account of his friendship with Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Sejanus actually executed the office of Emperor in the absence of Tiberius, who had all but retired from public life by this time to Capri, an island in the Tyrrhenian Sea on the south side of the gulf of Naples. The problem was that Tiberius’ sister-in-law, Antonia, had levied treasonous charges against Sejanus, whom Tiberius almost immediately had executed as a result. Nevertheless, the trouble didn’t end with Sejanus’ death. Investigation was being made concerning all of his appointees, and many of them were arrested and executed, together with their families. Therefore, in light of these events, which were taking place around the Roman Empire even as Jesus was being tried by Pilate, the Jewish authorities charge: “If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend” (John 19:12) needed to be taken very seriously. Pilate’s very life might have hung in the balance, if Jesus’ release was reported to Roman authorities with the slant the high priest of Jerusalem would have given it.
Therefore, Pilate finally released Barabbas, who was actually guilty of insurrection, and condemned Jesus, whom he had found innocent of that crime (Luke 23:25). This is indeed an interesting contrast made by Luke at this point in his narrative (cf. Acts 3:14), emphasizing the severity of the exchange of places with the known criminal.
Things Paul & Luke 
Woodrow Nichols
April 7, 2021 at 10:56
Luke 23:19: “(For a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was [Barabbas] cast into prision.” When did this take place?
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 7, 2021 at 11:28
The text doesn’t say. However, according to Josephus, each governor of Judea released those prisoners who had not committed capital crimes and crucified those who did at such a time when they were replaced by a new Roman governor. So, Barabbas could have been put in prison anytime since Pilate assumed his office as governor of the Jews cir. 26 AD to just before Jesus was crucified cir. 31 AD.
Woodrow Nichols
April 7, 2021 at 16:09
Mark 15:7 states: “And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Isn’t it likely that this occurred after Jesus cleansed the Temple?
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 7, 2021 at 21:03
Likely? No. Possible? Maybe.
I don’t know how quick the trials were back then. Certainly Jesus’ trial was quick, but the evidence in the narratives show this was forced. All things being equal, don’t know.
The fact that the governors kept prisoners who committed capital crimes in prison, only to crucify them when they left office, tells me there may have been an ulterior motive in doing that. It may have been to their advantage to keep some captive and go out in a big flash. On the other hand some were slain on the spot. Pilate and the other governors weren’t beyond immediate execution without a trial (this according to Josephus). In fact, Pilate was removed as governor due to reports saying he was very brutal.
Bottom line? don’t know!
Woodrow Nichols
April 7, 2021 at 22:55
Fair enough. But we are told that there had been an insurrection in the city, and the one that occurred that led to the Jewish war against Rome also began in the city, and the first thing is they took over the temple. Isn’t it likely that this one also began in the temple?
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 8, 2021 at 04:42
Likely? That would be forcing the issue, in my opinion. The insurrections mentioned by Josephus that occurred in the 40s / 50s occurred outside the city. Nevertheless, it is possible it began in the city and even in the Temple, but I doubt it, and what’s more, we have no evidence for that, not one mention or allusion.
Woodrow Nichols
April 8, 2021 at 14:04
Except for the mention in Mark and Luke.
Woodrow
Eddie
April 8, 2021 at 22:21
Meaning what? There certainly isn’t any additional evidence in those accounts that would lead us to believe he was part of a sedition that broke out in the Temple. Once again, the text doesn’t deny it, but neither does it support that conclusion. We simply do not know when or how or exactly where the sedition took place. All we know is it occurred in they city, but in the northern market places or against the Antonia, itself (highly unlikely), the western or southern parts, or the Temple to the east? — we simply do not know.
Woodrow Nichols
April 8, 2021 at 23:20
But Mark 15:7-8 seems to indicate that the insurrection was well known: and thus didn’t need further elaboration: “…who had committed murder in the insurrection.” Then we compare that with Mark 11:15, where the next day after the Triumphant Entry he returns to the city: “And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the Temple,and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the Temple, and overthrew the the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the Temple.” That last part is only possible if force is used Plus Mark separates the Cleansing and the Entry whereas Matthew has the cleansing immediately following the Entry (Matthew 21:10-12). Why would he separate them? Perhaps because there was an insurrection?
Woodrow Nichols.
Eddie
April 9, 2021 at 05:11
In my opinion, Woodrow, you’re missing the point of the Gospel narratives. They point to what Jesus said and did. The insurrection that occurred has nothing to do with the Gospel, so it didn’t get much attention. John the Baptist pertains to the Gospel, so he gets more attention than Pilate or any of the high priests or even Caesar. The insurrectionists get little stage time, because that is all their deed deserves. It is important that Jesus is numbered with the transgressors. They were transgressors and Jesus was not.
You may visualize all the political intrigue you wish, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Each of the Synoptics record an entry whereby Jesus cast out the money changers. Each record points to a different casting out. Thus, Jesus is in control of when he would be crucified. He didn’t do this thing every time he came to Jerusalem. He did it once in the beginning of his ministry (John 2) and three times in the end, and that was to cause the Jewish authorities to act against him. They profited a great deal over the illegal presence of the money changers, and they were livid by the third entry.
Nevertheless, believe as you wish.
Woodrow Nichols
April 9, 2021 at 13:33
so, you believe the authorities allowed more that one cleansing? I can’t believe that.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
April 9, 2021 at 19:53
Well, in light of the true gospel the 4 gospels are unnecessary semi biography. Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried and rose the third day according to the Scriptures. There was no New Testament at the time, just the New Covenant initiated by Christ. So what is the point of the narratives? They are mainly informative of cult formation and the evolution of dogma.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 10, 2021 at 04:34
This is supposed to be in reply to my reply in our discussion concerning Barabbas. Was the insurrection in the Temple or not, and did it occur recently (after Jesus came to Jerusalem)?
My reply claims the Gospel narratives don’t support such a timing or the place for the event. In reply you want to do away with the Gospel narratives as unnecessary and have no point as far as the Gospel is concerned.
I can only wonder what, exactly, you believe the Gospel is. If all I have is your comment above, then, according to Woodrow Nichols the Gospel is: “Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried and rose the third day according to the Scriptures.” End of story. Now let’s get on with our lives.
Well, if, indeed, that is what you believe, then it is very reasonable for you to reject the word of God, so you could interject your ideas of political intrigue when and where you like without any evidence. You seem to be more interested in the “story” you could create out of the New Covenant data without being mindful of what the New Covenant text says elsewhere, than what the text actually claims is true.
This is the difference between you and men, Woodrow. I have the text, the whole text and only the text. You have Woodrow, whatever Woodrow says and only what Woodrow says. Have a good time doing that, today.
Woodrow Nichols
April 10, 2021 at 15:31
The gospel narratives are unnecessary for salvation. What do you have to believe to receive the Holy Spirit? Paul states it clearly in I Corinthians 15:3-4: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures [Old Testament}; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” That’s the true gospel, brother. And like I said, there were no gospel narratives at that time, just the Old Testament and the Holy Spirit. You’ve supplanted the Holy Spirit for alleged accounts of the life and deeds of Christ, but that’s just the icing on the cake.
With the discernment provided by the Holy Spirit I rightly divide the word of truth, as every divine Son of God is able to do. All we know is that around the time Christ entered Jerusalem and cleansed the Temple there was an insurrection in the city. We are also told that Christ used force to prevent people from carrying vessels through the temple. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the authorities wouidn’t have allowed Jesus more than one time for it wouild have stirred up a hornet’s nest of trouble and possibly a riot. Thus it is reasonable to assume the insurrection occorred at this time. Your idea of multiple cleansings is based on the weird idea that the gospel accounts don’t disagree with each other, which they clearly do.
The New Testament was written by men like me and you. Yes, they are inspired but not inerrant without contradiction, which is the poorest and strangest logic on the planet.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 10, 2021 at 18:27
That was not your argument to which I made my previous reply. You claimed:
There is a huge difference between those two statements. Of course, the narratives aren’t necessary for salvation, neither is the rest of the Bible. How many scriptures were written down when Able was murdered by Cain? Yet, we have the testimony of the word of God that Able was righteous, and being so was a part of the resurrection. Jesus saves, not anything or anyone else, and by the way, Able didn’t have the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation. The Holy Spirit is a gift to those who had been saved in the New Covenant era after Pentecost.
Concerning 1Corinthians 15:3-4, that certainly is the Gospel, but it isn’t the whole Gospel. It says nothing about loving one’s brethren or one’s enemies for that matter. If all that was necessary was 1Corinthians 15:3-4, then what would prevent the love of many waxing cold (Matthew 24:12). It also says nothing about enduring (persecution) to the end (i.e. till Christ returned) as mentioned in the next verse (Matthew 24:13). It seems to me, you want 1Corinthians 15:3-4 to apply to you, without any responsibility on your part except to believe. Well, that is the beginning, but even demons believe and tremble (James 2:19).
No, **YOU** say Jesus used force to prevent people from carrying vessels through the Temple. The Gospel narratives say nothing of the kind. Jesus had authority, and folks listened. Even the Jewish authorities in the Temple feared to do anything to him. They waited for nightfall, and they came for him with swords and clubs.
You believe it reasonable… you assume!!! That has absolutely nothing to do with the word of God. It all comes from Woodrow. Woodrow believes it reasonable… Woodrow assumes…
The fact is Matthew tells us Jesus cleansed the Temple upon his arrival, coming from Jericho: (Matthew 21:12). Mark doesn’t record that one. He has him leave for Bethany and returns, curses the fig tree on the way and at that time he cleanses the Temple once again (Mark 11:12-16). The following day, they came again and the fig tree had already withered (Mark 11:20). Luke has Jesus weeping as he came to see the city (Luke 19:41-44), then enters and cleanses the Temple a third time in four days. Now, we know this is a third time, because Jesus had no reason to weep when he came from Jericho, nor did he have reason to weep upon the so-called triumphant entry recorded in Mark 11:12 and in John’s Gospel. He wept at Luke’s entry, because the folks who were so glad to see him at the triumphant entry didn’t come out to greet him on his third entry. They had rejected him (cp. John 12:34).
As for the Jewish authorities, they had their fingers in the air checking for the wind direction (Luke 19:47-48).
The word of God indeed was written by men, but by men guided by God. They told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Otherwise, we have no accurate witness of anything Jesus said or did. We don’t even know if 1Corinthians 15:3-4 is accurate, unless we have the inerrant word of God.
Woodrow Nichols
April 10, 2021 at 19:19
Who didn’t have the Holy Spirit? Jesus? He got it at the baptism of John. No accurate witness? The Letters of Paul are to believed over the book of Acts if you are concerned with accuracy And I don’t regard James or Jude as authority when it comes to the churches of Paul. As far as I am concerned James was an antichrist. And Luke was a compromiser. That’s why the Paul of his letters is different from the Paul of Acts. In his letters he is an equal apostle, but Luke only calls him an apostle of Antioch, led on a leash by Silas, until Corinth, where he breaks free and Silas disappears from the record.
The Scriptures that record the gospel are in the Old Testament and sometimes the gospel writers show which verses were important. Four cleansings of the Temple? That’s absurd. As well as more than one Triumphant Entry. You act as if your speculations are without flaw while they only project your bias into the scriptures. Inerrancy is a fool’s game. A man made doctrine and pure bull.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
April 11, 2021 at 02:57
One more thing. You say I Cor. 15;3-4 is the gospel but not the whole gospel. Are you aware of the Curse of Paul on anyone who adds to the gospel? (Galatians 1:8-9) You have added works, Eddie. I thought you knew better than to walk into a trap like that. Belief in the Faith of Jesus Christ is all it is, and love and all those other good works should follow if you allow the Holy Spirit to lead you. But they are not necessary for salvation.
Woodrow
Eddie
April 11, 2021 at 04:11
Are you now cursing me, Woodrow, because I don’t believe as you do? Have I really, as you claim, walked into a ‘trap’? Was a ‘trap’ set for me? By whom? Are you aware, what Galatians spoke against? It spoke against circumcision. Circumcision in the flesh is bigotry—to separate oneself from another human being because of his race, color, gender, creed etc. anything that you think is unclean in a person or something you object to that isn’t a spiritual matter. To be circumcised, for example, you needed to accept Judaism as your religion—touch not, taste not, separate yourself from, be observant to do all that was in the Law etc., believing that one cannot be saved, unless one did these things. Am I cursed because I say we need to love one another? Am I cursed because I say believing the Gospel involves responsibility to bear fruit to God? Jesus said it is by their fruits you would know them (his people and those who aren’t his people). But, of course, the Gospel narratives are unnecessary. We need not observe anything in them. Is this correct, or have I quoted you wrong?
Really? And, you know this how? After all, you did claim in your previous reply that the word of God (the Bible, including the New Covenant text) is not inerrant, inspired (maybe, because some of those folks were antichrist) but not inerrant. Who is antichrist, and how do you know? What is inspired, and how do you know? Is Paul inspired? How do you know? Where’s your witness, Woodrow? You claimed it was unnecessary. All you need is Woodrow, what Woodrow says is true, and only what Woodrow says is true. You have no witness! All you have are your “inspired” reasoning and your “inspired” assumptions. You have nothing more, because no one is inerrant. No one was guided by the hand of God in such a way that a truly accurate witness could be handed down. Funny! Isn’t it. God who is almighty and could have done such a thing, screwed up and left us to ourselves with no inerrant testimony to show what Christ actually said and what Christ actually did! Did he really die for our sins? How do you know, Woodrow? Your aren’t 2000 years old, so you have no accurate witness. Do you ?
Woodrow Nichols
April 11, 2021 at 09:40
Only you would know if you have added anything beyond 1 Cor. 15 as necessary for salvation. Why would I curse you? You seem to have forgotten what gives us comfort, knowledge, and wisdom, which of course is the possession of the Holy Spirit plus experience in spiritual things, like overcoming fear of punishment to attain pure freedom of thought. Your view of God and inerrancy shows you are still struggling under Platonic categories. The New Testament is instructive to the Chlldren of God, but not so that it becomes a millstone around your neck.
I know that Christ died for my sins because that’s what the Holy Spirit told me the night I was saved, and once I believed it I received the Holy Spirit in an intense experience. Your question should be How did the early church survive for fifty years without any written New Testament? It was the heretic Marcion who created the first New Testament in the Second Century. But he was an antisemite who rejected the scriptures which prove the gospel. But he was on the right track. Even Luther was wise enough to reject the Letter of James, for its gospel is one of works righteousness with the Spirit of the Law of Moses in place of the Holy Spirit. I am actually surprised at your response. But if I were you I would take the Curse seriously for I imagine it involves a case by case analysis where God judges the heart. The Righteousness of God without the Law is manifest in the Faith of Jesus Christ, not our own which would make it a work. Belief in that Faith gives us the knowledge of salvation. How do I know what I experienced is true? The answer is again the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. You have your own walk in the Lord, Eddie, as i have mine.
Believing the Bible is inerrant leads to such ludicrous ideas as three or four cleansing of the Temple and four Triumpant Entries, for you fail to see that the records are for singular pericopes. The dogma of the inerrancy of scripture are doctrines of men and unnecessary for salvation.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 11, 2021 at 17:26
You are back-peddling, Woodrow. This is not what you said in your previous comment. There, you said:
You claimed I am cursed, but we’ll go on.
Well, here you speak truth mixed with babble. For example, how do you know having the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge. What knowledge does he give you? I know of nothing that isn’t attained by study either in the world or in the Spirit. Where does your knowledge come from, Woodrow. Some folks think they can gain it through osmosis. In such cases, nothing is provable. It is all subjective. Folks think a thing and they claim it is the truth of God, but nothing can be proved about what they say. So, how do you know having the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge and in knowing the work of the Holy Spirit, how does such a thing occur without the Bible?
The reason I ask is Jesus says in John: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). According to this passage in Scripture, the Holy Spirit reminds a person of what Jesus said (or did). The original disciples of Jesus, of course, didn’t need a New Covenant text, which they could read and have what they’ve read brought to mind by the Spirit. Instead, they were witnesses of what Jesus said and did, and the Spirit would have brought that to mind. He didn’t **give** them new knowledge or knowledge they didn’t already have recorded in their brains. Anyone who came after the original disciples, however, would have nothing for the Sprit to bring to mind, unless, of course, the original disciples left us with a record of the sayings and acts of Jesus.
So, where does your knowledge come from, Woodrow? You claim the Gospel narratives are unnecessary and aren’t an accurate witness anyway. So, how have you come by the knowledge you have, and how has the Spirit worked that out?
I’ll stop here and leave the rest of what you claimed for a later date, or, more probably, unanswered.
Woodrow Nichols
April 11, 2021 at 20:07
I already told you, Eddie. The night I came to Christ the Holy Spirit told me that Christ died for my sins and once I was given the Holy Spirit he told me that everything I needed to know about my salvation was in the Bible. That is my witness, brother, and I’d stop where you are, brother, for you are in the territory of the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is not, contrary to the scriptures, eternally unforgiven. I am a Divine Son of God, brother. Everything beyond 1 Cor 15:3-4 is my opinion, nothing else, so quit accusing me of making things up. In the next chapter of John 16:13, it reads: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all Truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall Hear, that shall he Speak: and he will show you things to come.”
That is how I know these things. Sep not further into Darkness, brother.
Woodrow Nichols
Eddie
April 12, 2021 at 00:06
I never said you weren’t a child of Christ, Woodrow, nor did I imply it in any of my comments.
What I am trying to do is get you to realize is that without the Bible you have no witness. You are telling me that the Spirit told you everything you needed to know about your salvation was in the Bible. How is that possible unless you have an errant witness? Interpretation is another matter, but what’s there is inerrant. Otherwise, you have no real help in what the Spirit told you.
John 16:13 means nothing, unless you can say it is inerrant. You have no help to understand our common salvation, unless you admit the Bible is inerrant. Are you saved? I have no doubt. Do you understand the value of the Bible? No, you do not. I am not your judge, but I will not hold back and permit you to tell me the word of God is unnecessary. You even admit above that the Spirit told you to look into the Bible to understand your salvation. You vacillate between admitting its value and casting it aside as unimportant.
Woodrow Nichols
April 12, 2021 at 02:36
The Bible also tells a lot of lies about our salvation, brother. Without the Spirit, the Bible is just a book.
Woodrow Nichols
Woodrow Nichols
April 12, 2021 at 02:47
For example, Faith without works is dead. That’s the biggest lie in the whole book. So saying that the Bible is inerrant makes that bold like look like some kind of truth. You just don’t know what you are talking about. I understand the value of the Bible because the Spirit does. Without the Spirit the Law of Moses is dead, the Letter in Stone, not the Spirit of Life, which is in the belief in the true gospel as stated in 1 Cor 15:3-4.
Alright, in your view what is Spiritual Discernment? Is the Spirit involved or just it take a lot of studying in the Bible, making it solipsistic. You just didn’t get John 16:13, you eased over the plain meaning for a fleshly philisophical argument. Look, as long as use Platonic categories, to with, if there are errors then the whole baby needs to be cast out with the bathwater is crazy. There is just as much Truth in the Bible as there is lies. Our job,using Spiritual Discernment, is to discover what the lies are and what the truth is, for the Bible is the Knowlege of Good and Evil and is full of both.
Woodrow Nichols
.