In the time of Christ, it is probable that the goat “for Azazel” was lead out the east gate of the temple (the Nikanor gate) and led off a cliff. It bore the sins of the people to death. However, it appears that the other goat was offered as a sacrifice. Barabbas represents the goat that was released that really was sinful while the other goat is lead to the sacrifice given for God. I know that the usual modern interpretation is that the goat “for Azazel” is the symbol of Christ bearing away the sins of the people, but it seems to me that point of the narrative regarding Barabbas is included to show that the real sacrifice given “for the Lord” is not the one that goes free while still in sin, but the one that is sacrificed “for the Lord”.

Barabbas, despite his lack of any apparant moral fortitude, is allowed to go free and is released from a physical death, at that particular time anyway. We too are released from the results of physical death through the atoning sacrifice.

Kent: yeah, the authors don’t give us any information about Barabbas’ attitude. But suppose that someday we observe Jesus letting a non-repentant Barabbas go free; should we rejoice or be angry?

Rameumptom: interesting thoughts about the goat for Azazel–the “scapegoat.” Leviticus 16 illustrates an important difference between the two goats: the one that is sacrificed was made as a sin-offering, whereas the other carried the people’s iniquities into the wilderness. Sin-offerings, it should be noted, were not made for sins as we think of the term, but rather for unintentional mistakes and ritual uncleanness. (Thus, it is perhaps better to refer to the first goat as a “purification” offering.) The second goat carried the real sins of the people—sins as we think of the word—and was sent away into the wilderness where it would undoubtedly die. The point was not to release the second goat into a life of freedom, but to send it far away. Both goats carried sins, both goats died.