One of several unsettling aspects of the Easter story for me has always been how the same people who had welcomed Jesus into the city with ‘Hosannas’ could call for his crucifixion just days later.
These were religious people. They knew Scripture. They were waiting for the Messiah. They were egged on by religious leaders who also knew the Torah.
So why would they choose someone who had been involved in a violent insurrection over someone preaching a message of love, forgiveness and truth?
(After all, who would ever vote for anyone who instigated a violent insurrection?)
This is not merely a historical detail. It is a mirror. It is not just about them—it exposes something very current about human psychology, politics and religion.
The question of Easter is not only ‘what did they do?’ It is also ‘what would we do?’ Perhaps, ‘what are we doing?’
In the courtyard of Pontius Pilate, two figures stood before the crowd. One, a man known for violent rage, a murderer, seething resentment and seeking vengeance – Barabbas. The other, a man of mercy, a healer, a wise teacher of love and reconciliation – Jesus.
Pilate offered the crowd a choice: one would be released. A no-brainer, thought Pilate.
Yet the crowd shouted: “Barabbas!”
Which should astonish us. But we were not in the crowd, swept along by the hysteria of the moment. Perhaps we have never experienced mob behaviour, the dynamics of crowd psychology, and the resulting volatility. For the ‘crowd’ is not a stable moral agent. It is easily influenced, emotionally reactive and susceptible to suggestion.
The Gospels tell us where suggestion came from: the persuasive voices of religious leaders. The same crowd that celebrated the Son of David can be mobilised differently under pressure, flipping collective emotion rapidly.
And so Jesus was led to the cross.
The Appeal of Barabbas
Actually, Barabbas represented something deeply attractive. The people were living under Roman occupation. They longed for liberation. They wanted someone who would fight. Someone strong, defiant, promising action. Barabbas looked like someone who would fight for Jewish liberation.
Jesus, on the other hand, looked weak. He refused violence. He spoke of loving enemies. He appeared submitted rather than resistant. To many, Jesus appeared passive — even disappointing.
Unfulfilled expectations can produce strong reactions. As with Judas. And so the people chose Barabbas.
Here the story becomes uncomfortable. Because the same dynamic still exists today.
When societies feel anxious, threatened or humiliated, charismatic strong figures become attractive. Leaders who promise strength, restoration, victory and greatness.
All over Europe, and across the Atlantic, leaders are attracting voters by projecting certainty, speaking boldly, promising quick solutions and dividing the world into friends and enemies.
That’s how Hitler won over decent, ordinary Germans, promising restoration of Germany’s greatness. It’s how Putin rose to power, promising restoration of Russia’s greatness. Both were supported by religious leaders.
Again and again, human societies gravitate toward Barabbas.
The Temptation of Charismatic Narcissism
We don’t know enough about Barabbas to know if he was narcissistic.
But we can identify past and present leaders in this category, both political and religious, who spoke/speak with certainty, promised/promise greatness, demanded/demand loyalty and divided/divide people into allies and enemies. Narcissists often attack critics aggressively. Critics become cautious, and supporters rally more strongly. The narcissist becomes victim, hero and fighter all at once.
Like the religious people in the Jerusalem crowd, Christians too can be wooed into choosing Barabbas. The sense that Christianity is losing influence, society is becoming more secular and moral values are eroding creates a fear that can lead to support for strong leaders, aggressive rhetoric and simplistic solutions. Fear narrows moral discernment. Tempted by access to power, Christians can look for a protector rather than a servant leader.
As justification, some religious leaders appeal to Cyrus the Great, the pagan ruler in the Bible whom God used to free Israel. “God can use imperfect leaders.” “We don’t need a saint — just someone effective.”
Once support begins, it becomes hard to withdraw. After people commit to a leader, they defend them more strongly. They ignore negative evidence. They blame others for failures.
This is called cognitive dissonance: people prefer to defend their past decisions rather than admit they were wrong.
There’s also a deeper human dynamic. Narcissists often mirror something in society itself: the desire for greatness, the fear of weakness, the longing for identity, and resentment toward elites or outsiders. In this sense, narcissistic leaders don’t just create movements — they reveal them.
The Surprise of Easter
The resurrection vindicates the humble path of Jesus. God’s power is revealed not in domination, but in sacrificial love. Not in coercion, but in transformation. Not in pride, but in humility.
The resurrection declares the way of Jesus, rejected by the crowd, as the way of life.
Till next week,
Your article seems farcical to me:
‘After all, who would ever vote for anyone who instigated a violent insurrection?’
Yeah so, what’s the problem? Isn’t the reason the USA even exist as a country is because of a successful armed revolt against British authority back in the day? In fact, not just the USA but many countries, nations and regimes ultimately exist due to war, rebellion or some other violent act against some prevailing authority.
‘The other, a man of mercy, a healer, a wise teacher of love and reconciliation – Jesus.’
‘He refused violence. He spoke of loving enemies.’
Really now, didn’t He say that He didn’t come to bring peace but a sword, which actually meant He would be divisive, or to use a modern term, polarising (Matthew 10:34-36)?
Would He really seem ‘non-violent’, ‘loving’ etc when He drove out those merchants from the temple (Mark 11:15-18,Matthew 21:12-16,Luke 19:45-47,John 2:13-16)? Indeed, according to John’s account, He actually took time to make whip for the purpose. Now that’s premeditated violence in modern-day parlance. And I suspect that those merchants were among the crowds that were mocking Jesus and demanding His death during His trial and crucifixion. And why not? Who said they would simply accept what He did to them.
How about that time when Jesus cursed and destroyed a fruitless fig tree (Matthew 21: 18-22, Mark 11:12-25) which I believe was Him demonstrating one of his teachings/warnings (Luke 13:6-9). Would that have seem ‘peaceful’ or ‘nice’ to you?
How about that time when during an exorcism, He allowed the demons to wipe out a whole group of pigs (Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39). There’s one bunch of people in that account which usually gets overlooked; the people who own those pigs in the first place. They most certainly wouldn’t think He did a ‘nice’ thing, for the people in the region (which must have included the pig-owners) told Jesus to get lost, get out of their area after learning what happened to their livestock. Oh, and isn’t there some implied hostility to foreigners (in this case, non-Jews) in the account. Since Jews are not allowed to eat pigs or even touch their carcass (Leviticus 11:7-8) the pig’s owners must have been non-Jews. And obviously Jesus didn’t care that they lost their livestock. Furthermore, in another exorcism, wasn’t Jesus’s initial reaction was He didn’t want to help because it was a non-Jewish woman who begged for His help, and He only came for His fellow Jews (Matthew 15:22-29, Mark 7:25-30).
How about that time when Jesus condemned several entire Jewish towns for refusing to repent despite seeing Him and His miracles (Matthew 11:20-24)? If you were an inhabitants of those towns, would that condemnation have seemed ‘loving’? And I understand that those towns remain uninhabited ruins in our present, so Jesus was not making empty threats.
How about Jesus implying from a parable that He/God is actually like a king who will kill all those who don’t accept his rule (Luke 19:27). Let me guess, don’t talk about such a passage because it doesn’t sound ‘loving, nice and peaceful’?
How about when Ananias and Sapphira died for attempting to fool the early church (Acts 5: 1-11), or when the sorcerer Elymas was blinded for opposing Paul’s witnessing efforts (Acts 13:6-12). Still look ‘loving, nice, peaceful’ to you?
How about that time when Jesus said He will make an unrepentant female sex cult leader (judging from the references to fornication, adultery and idol sacrifice in Revelations 2:20-23) suffer intensely and even threatened to kill her children? Now when was the last time anybody mention that Jesus was actually the kind of person who threaten to kill your children if you keep on steeping out of line? Oh, let me guess, don’t talk about it because it doesn’t sound ‘loving, nice and peaceful’?
Or how about when Jesus returns and apparently enough enemies and unbelievers will be killed at that time to fill a pool of blood as ‘high as a horse’s bridle’ over 180 miles across (Revelations 14:13-20)? Too grim to talk about? Well you can’t say you haven’t been warned, since Jesus already implied that He/God is like a king who will kill all who don’t recognise his rule (Luke 19:27).
What I’m trying to say is that you cannot say that Jesus was only being ‘loving, nice and peaceful’ whereas other people or leaders maybe more ‘warlike’. Jesus/God actually has a severe side all along with his kind side (Romans 11:22). You and any others who seemingly only talk about Jesus as being ‘nice, loving and peaceful’ are effectively lying and distorting Jesus, as far as I can see.
“The sense that Christianity is losing influence, society is becoming more secular and moral values are eroding creates a fear that can lead to support for strong leaders, aggressive rhetoric and simplistic solutions.”
It’s not just ‘sense’ is it when the Finnish Supreme Court just recently ruled against Paivi Rasanen, or when the UK bans silent prayers outside abortion clinics whilst permitting very public Islamic prayers or King Charles issuing public greetings for Ramadan but said nothing about Easter. What exactly was done about those recent developments, just stay quiet?
8w5lwo