Mark 15:7Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He sought a different approach. The people expected him to pardon one of the prisoners as part of the Passover festival (Mark 15:8). Pilate then presented the choice to the crowd: Barabbas or Jesus Christ. It was clear that he wished to liberate Jesus, convinced that the trial stemmed solely from jealousy (Mark 15:10). Why did Pilate harbor good intentions yet fail to act on them? Why did he possess knowledge of the truth but lack the courage to uphold it? There was a deficiency of genuine love for the truth in his heart; the allure of worldly matters drowned out the promptings of his conscience. Pilate further compromised the truth by asserting to the Sanhedrin his belief in Jesus’ innocence, yet simultaneously vowed to punish the innocent contrary to his own judgment. He walked a treacherous path of deceit when he equated the innocent Jesus with Barabbas. Who was Barabbas? A insurrectionist and thief (Luke 23:15), imprisoned alongside other rebels who committed murder during the uprising (Mark 15:7). Pilate drew a comparison between the sinless Jesus and such a villain! What was Pilate’s rationale? Did he truly think that the crowd would choose a notorious wrongdoer over the innocent Jesus? Indeed, he did. But was he acting as a true judge? Was he upholding the authority of Caesar? No. He relinquished his own rights and transferred them to others. To whom did he concede his authority? To the mob! The once-proud Roman continued to sink lower. We can already foresee that Pilate will align himself with Caiaphas, just as he did with Herod. It is clear that all manner of sinners are aligning against Jesus Christ—hypocrites and unrestrained Sadducees, the firm and the morally weakened, representatives of powerful Rome alongside those of fragile royalty, educated and uneducated, soldiers and servants alike. Furthermore, the same crowd that had recently hailed Him with shouts of hosanna would now side with His adversaries.

This prompted Pilate to consider more earnestly granting freedom to Jesus, as the notion of sentencing an innocent being, let alone one considered divine, troubled even a Roman governor. Yet, the chief priests intensified their efforts, directly accusing Jesus of inciting rebellion, claiming He was misleading the people and discouraging them from paying tribute to Caesar. They reinforced this accusation by asserting that Jesus had originated from Galilee with such teachings (Luke 23:2).

To deem the Accused innocent of the charges leveled against Him and then, to appease the spiteful accusers by punishing Him? He intended to satisfy both parties, but he misjudged the situation: the chief priests, seeing his indecision, pressed even harder for their demands; no concession could quench their thirst for blood, only the death of Jesus would suffice. Pilate held on to hope that he could resolve the matter in a way that would satisfy both sides. The crowd reminded him of the tradition of releasing a prisoner during Passover, and while he realized they aimed to have Barabbas set free—convicted of insurrection and murder—he thought that if he offered to release Jesus Christ instead, the people might seize the opportunity to free their Galilean prophet. He then posed the question to the people: “Which one do you want me to release to you, Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called the Christ?"

In accordance with a practice likely established by the Romans to placate the vanity of the subjugated, and to help them cope with the bitterness of their oppression—though it was not a Jewish custom—the Roman governor had the tradition of releasing a prisoner during Passover, based on the people's preference. Understanding that the chief priests and elders were behind all opposition to Jesus, and recognizing that the common people had recently expressed fervent support for Him during His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Pilate considered offering them a choice between two prisoners: Jesus of Nazareth and the notorious thief and murderer Barabbas, who was also referred to as Jesus according to some accounts. He hoped that the people would choose the One they had recently hailed as the son of their beloved King David, their national pride and glory.