Maundy Thursday 2010: Fifth Holy Week Sermon — 2 Comments

  1. (It never ceases to amaze me that even though people may read the same Book… even the same words in that Book, come away with an entirely different interpretation. It amazes me even more that some people do not even see the same words or ideas that are contained and expressed in that Book.)

    Interpreted: “Scholars looking at Barabbas’ name have tried to draw conclusions about him.”

    Nowhere in the Gospels is the ‘name’: “Barabbas” mentioned, -it is what He was ‘called’. “Barabbas” is not a proper name or surname (any more so than is “Christ”), -it is an Aramaic appellation, -the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in ‘the Father of us all’ or, ‘God’, if you will). It is not as you ‘re-interpret’ it to mean as also in a religious sense: ‘son of a rabbi’…. it is what it is i.e., (the) ‘Son of the Father’ or ‘Son of God’. You go on to ‘interpret’ (without any historically documented basis of fact) that: “If Barabbas came from the devout religious background typical of the house of a rabbi, he has gone a long way from it by the time he appears in the Gospel story.

    Despite the fact that He is ‘documented’ only in the Holy Gospels… as being “a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist” (without evidence, much less proof), nothing whatsoever is known about Him, -save that which is written in the original Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17)… that, He name Jesus [Barabbas] appears… but, that His name “Jesus” was removed or omitted from the Latin ‘translation’ (read ‘interpreted’) of the same text (around 390 c. e.) and most of the subsequent ‘translations’ thereafter.

    Now, I can only hypothesize as to who He may be (and I shall do so at a later time)… in the meantime, I leave to more confident heads to come to their own conclusions.

    More to the issue at hand… your further speculation re. “What we do know is that Barabbas is representative of all of us.”

    Would that the above be true… not merely because of the Aramaic appellation above… but also because I, for one, agree with the Jews’ demand to crucify ‘the descendant of David and Jewish messiah’.

    Now, why would I, like the Jews, agree that ‘the descendant of David and Jewish messiah’ should be given the death sentence?

    I am confident that the Jews knew (and knows full well) their own history… certainly, of the days when the first king of the Jews (Saul of the tribe of Benjamin) was ‘anointed’. King Saul was eventually stripped of his kingly office and was relegated to head the military campaign against the Philistines. Saul “fell upon his own sword” rather than being captured. This ‘sinful’ act brought everlasting dishonor and shame upon his immediate family and tribe in general. He was replaced by the ‘anointment’ of David’, of the tribe of Judah.
    King David was succeeded by the ‘anointment’ of his son, Solomon. King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam… however, Rehoboam (as well as Solomon’s and David’s ‘theocratic governance’) was rejected by ten tribes, -who, established a parallel ‘secular government’, headed by Jeroboam instead.
    This schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries… into the days of the Roman installed and supported: Herod the Great. Shortly after the passing of Herod the Great, Judas the Galilean rose up, -in an armed insurrection… to overthrow the Herodian government… in the hopes of re-establishing the ancient ‘theocracy’ of David. Judas the Galilean was killed… but others took up his ‘religious, messianic cause’…. continuously… thousands were crucified in this messianic zeal… until the nation was utterly destroyed… in 70 c. e.

    It crucially important to know or realize that no Jew (during the reign of Pontius Pilate) ever knew or saw or even heard of “Jesus Christ”. “Jesus Christ” is a direct result of Saul of Tarsus’ epiphany or apparition… some years after the crucifixion of ‘the descendant of David and Jewish messiah’.

    Saul of Tarsus, you may be interested to know, is the namesake and descendant of the first king of the Jews (who, as mentioned earlier, everlastingly dishonored and shamed his family and fellow tribal members).

    Saul of Tarus, -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul, is no friend of mine.

    Not only do I not agree with you re. “Jesus Christ” as well as that you interpret “[Jesus] Barabbas”… more importantly as it concerns, “we are a wretched and sinful people”…

    Yes, ‘faith’ starts with me… not Saul of Tarsus… neither the ‘Christian’ church.

    Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>