Location, Location, Location (John 3:23)

In what part of the Jordan River did John baptize? Near Aenon

The canonical gospels all record that at the outset of Jesus’ public ministry John the Baptist is drawing crowds to be baptized (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:4-8; Luke 3:1-20; John 1:6-13, 19-34, 3:22-35). Only John’s gospel, however, pinpoints the baptizer’s location (John 1:28, 3:23). When John the Baptist is last seen in the Gospel of John, he is said to be situated in Aenon (John 3:23).

John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized— (John 3:23 NASB)

John has evidently relocated to Aenon as he is previously seen baptizing in Bethany (John 1:28). Though Aenon is the locale’s most common spelling (CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) it is also rendered Enon (ASV) and Ae’non (RSV).

This is the only time Aenon appears in the Biblical record. The fourth gospel communicating geographic locations not found in the other canonical gospels is not uncommon.

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) relays:

John mentions a number of places not found in the Synoptics: Bethany beyond Jordan, where John baptized (John 1:28; cf. John 10:40); Aenon near Salim, another place where John baptized (John 3:23); the city of Sychar (John 4:5-6); a mountain of Samaria, presumably Gerizim (John 4:20); the city of Ephraim (John 11:54). (Smith, The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture, 107)

John’s precision has been lost to history as Aenon’s location is the subject of much debate. Walter Wink (1935-2012) researches:

A.M. Hunter [1906-1991], ‘Recent Trends in Johannine Studies’, ET, LXXI, 6 (1960), 164-7, declares that ‘the location of Aenon may now be regarded as reasonably certain’. It lies near the headwaters of Wadi Far’ah in Samaria. So also Charles H.H. Scobie [b. 1932], John the Baptist (1964), pp. 163ff. C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], St John, p. 183, remains skeptical. B.W. Bacon [1860-1932] cites evidence that there was a strong Samaritan gnostic wing of the Baptist movement and that John 3:23ff represents the struggle between Christians and Baptists there toward the close of the first century. Samaria is the traditional resting place of John (‘New and Old in Jesus’ Relation to John’, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLVIII, 1929, 52ff). Cf. also Carl H. Kraeling [1897-1966], John the Baptist, p.194 n. 9. Maurice Goguel [1880-1955] suggests that this passage originally emanated from a Baptist group, since it is John, not Jesus, who is so precisely located in John 3:23 (Life of Jesus, pp. 272-75). (Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition, 93)

Three potential locations for Aenon have been suggested. Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) surveys:

Although we are not certain where this Aenon was, three possibilities have come down through tradition (two of these places are even noted on the ancient mosaic map at Medaba [pictured]). The first of the three is at the northeastern end of the Dead Sea and is the least likely. Another is in the Jordan Valley of Samaria south of the ancient city of Beth Shan (Scythopolis), a site advocated by Rudolf Schnackenburg [1914-2002]. The third, preferred by W.F. Albright [1891-1971], is near Shechem in Samaria. The need to note in John 3:23 that there was plenty of water for baptizing makes some sense if it was in the hill country of Samaria, but it could also apply to the Jordan Valley. (Borchert, John 1-11 (The New American Commentary), 189-90)

As Borchert alludes, even church tradition has competing claims. J. Ramsey Michaels (b. 1931) observes:

The sixth-century mosaic map from Madeba in Jordan shows two Aenons, one east of the Jordan near where John was baptizing before (“Aenon there now Sapsaphas”) and the other west of the river and further north. The latter is specifically connected with our passage by being labeled “Aenon near Salim,” and agrees with the location eight miles south of Beth-shan assigned in a fourth-century gazetteer of biblical place-names, the Onomasticon of Eusebius [263-339] (cf. also the fourth-century travel diary of the European pilgrim Egeria). Modern attempts to locate Aenon in Samaria, where there is today a Salim southeast of Nablus and an Ainun nearby, are unconvincing because of John 4:1-4. The narrative hardly makes sense if Jesus was already baptizing in Samaria! Such names would have been common in any case: Aenon comes from the Aramaic word for “springs,” while Salim, like Salem or Jerusalem, is from a Semitic root meaning “peace.” The location assigned by Eusebius and the Madeba map appears not to rest simply on inferences from John’s Gospel and may therefore be regarded as an independent—and plausible—tradition. (Michaels, John (New International Biblical Commentary), 65)

John J. Rousseau (b. 1930) and Rami Arav (b. 1947) add:

Eusebius [263-339] mentions the place (Onomasticon 40:1-4), which he locates on the western side of the Jordan, as does Jerome [347-420] (Epistle 73). The Madaba Map indicates another location on the eastern side, opposite Betharba...According to a Christian tradition dating from the sixth century and coming from the pilgrim guide Antonius and Cyrillus Scythopolitanus [525-559], there was a cave on the eastern location (named Saphasphas or “Willow” on the Madaba map) where Jesus dwelt at the time of his baptism. (Rousseau and Arav, Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary, 7)

Joshua Schwartz (b. 1952) questions Eusebius’ traditional identification:

A number of problems surround the Byzantine identification. First, if crowds arrived to be baptized, why did John use a spring when the Jordan was nearby? And if perhaps this particular stretch of the Jordan was not convenient, would it not have been more logical to find another rather than to rely on such a spring? Moreover, was the Byzantine Aenon not too close to the pagan city of Scythopolis? Also, the Salem in the Jordan Valley was apparently not much of a settlement while the Gospel of John seems to imply that it was a well-known site. (Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld [1925-2009], “John the Baptist, the Wilderness and the Samaritan Mission”, Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai [b. 1923], 112-13)

Those who have placed Aenon in Samaria have seen it as evidence of a greater Samaritan ministry. Robert Kysar (b. 1934) researches:

Marie-Émile Boismard [1916-2004]’s study of John 3:23 leads him to find more prominence for the mission to the Samaritans than chapter 4 [John 4:1-54] alone would suggest. But he does not propose a Samaritan mission as a goal for the gospel as a whole (“Aenon près de Salem”). James D. Purvis [b. 1932] has scrutinized these theses for a Samaritan mission in the gospel and from his examination of the evidence concludes that, rather than a Samaritan mission, the evangelist was concerned with an anti-Samaritan polemic against a northern, sectarian prophet, a kind of Samaritan magus figure (“Fourth Gospel”). (Kysar, Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel, 97)

Though Aenon has not been definitively identified, it can be placed on the west side of the Jordan River. Robert. H. Gundry (b. 1932) examines:

John 3:26 will put the Baptist—and therefore Aenon, where he was baptizing—opposite the other side of the Jordan River, where he’d been earlier. Since the other side is the east side, or Transjordan (compare John 1:28, 40), Aenon opposite the east side must be located in territory west of the river—but probably not on its bank, because then John wouldn’t have needed to say that “many waters were there.” (Gundry, Commentary on John)

Despite the failure to distinguish Aenon’s exact location even the most critical of scholars accepts the probability of John’s notation. Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) acknowledges:

The location of Aenon, where the Baptist was currently ministering (John 3:23)... another incidental detail that even as sceptical a scholar as Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976] (1971: 170, n. 9) assumed to be accurate. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary, 96)

The reason for John’s relocation is also lost to history, though some have seen it as a means of avoiding competition with Jesus, similar to Abraham and Lot’s dispersal of land (Genesis 13:1-18). In this way Jesus and John are taking measures not to infringe upon one another’s “territory” thus avoiding a potential turf war.

Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) speculates:

The statement that John is “also” baptizing seems to indicate that the baptisms are essentially similar (i.e. for repentance). This is the last time that John and Jesus will be in any sense “together,’ sharing the same task. From this point on their paths will diverge drastically. This is the last time that Jesus will closely associate His ministry with that of John. It is an appropriate time for John to express the truth of John 3:30...“Also” is important for a question of geography. Is John “also baptizing”(his location being Aenon) or “also baptizing at Aenon”? If the second option is taken, then Jesus and John are in very close proximity. At any rate, the whole point of this episode seems lost if they are separated by a great distance. (Stallings, The Gospel of John (The Randall House Bible Commentary), 59)

Charles R. Swindoll (b.1934) deduces:

Judea was clearly the Baptizer’s territory. Jesus and His disciples came into Judea, where they not only lingered indefinitely, they even baptized! [John 4:1-2] Meanwhile, John and his disciples continued their ministry of baptism in Aenon...near Salim...places undoubtedly familiar to first-century readers. John’s choice of words heightens the tension as well. The phrase “spending time” is based on the Greek word diatribō [John 3:22]. While the term is used figuratively to mean “to pass time, or to waste time,” it means literally, “to rub between, to rub hard, to rub away.” The potential for friction is unmistakable. (Swindoll, Insights on John, 77-78)

Deeper meaning has been read into the passage’s geography. Some have connected Aenon’s waters with the prophecy of Zechariah: “In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity.” (Zechariah 13:1 NASB).

Others have found symbolic meaning in the names “Aenon” and “Salim”. Craig R. Koester (b. 1953) considers:

The word Aenon means “springs” in Aramaic, and the evangelist explained that “there were many waters there” (John 3:22-23). He described the location of Aenon by relating it to the village of Salim, which suggests that he expected some readers to know where Salim was. Readers familiar with the Greek translation of the Scriptures may have heard that there was a village named Salem or Salim near Shechem, in the region of Samaria. It was best known from the story of Jacob, who stopped there when he bought the piece of land mentioned in John 4:5 and used it as a place of worship (cf. John 4:20). Those who knew these stories may have seen in John’s movement to Aenon a foreshadowing of Jesus’ ministry in Samaria, where he would tell Jacob’s descendants about living water and a new way to worship. (Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community, 186)

Thomas L. Brodie (b.1940) theorizes:

The uncertainty itself may be significant...In dealing with the elusive location of Jesus’ place of abode (John 1:39) and with the rather perplexing use of place names in the call of Philip (John 1:43-44), the fourth gospel’s geographic puzzles—like many of its other puzzles—appear to be a way of challenging the mind and of seeking to raise it to another level of perception. In the case of “Aenon near Salim” the puzzle would seem to be resolved through the fact that “the name [Aenon] is from the Aramaic plural of the word for ‘spring,’ while ‘Salim’ reflects the Semitic root for ‘peace’” (Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] 151. Shalom=”peace” or “salvation”). In other words, “Aenon near Salim” means “Springs near Peace.” This suits the context and makes theological sense. The passage as a whole (John 3:22-36) is largely connected with aspects of the peace which is brought by Jesus, particularly with the ideas of love and joy (cf. especially John 3:29-36). It is also concerned with John, the representative of the old dispensation who baptized with water, and with John’s relationship to Jesus (John 3:26-30). The picture of John as being at “Springs near Peace” fits the theological role. His is a world of springs, of cleansing water, of preparatory baptism. But nearby is Jesus, the one who, as well as cleansing what is negative, brings a positive peace. The distinctness of the two, as well as their nearness to one another, is further reflected in the image of the bridegroom and his friend, the best man (John 3:29)...In this geographic context...the interpreter has to choose between superficial confusion and theological coherence...Rather than presume that the writer was incapable of giving a clear geographic designation—something which should have been very easy—it seems more appropriate, given the theological depth of the gospel, and given also its tendency towards ambiguity, to interpret “Aenon near Salim” as being primarily theological. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 201-202)

C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) summarily rejects such figurative readings:

All attempts that have been made to extract a profound symbolic meaning out of the names of Sychar, the city of Ephraim, Bethany beyond Jordan, Aenon by Salim, of Cana and Tiberias, or again, of Kedron, Bethesda (or Bethzatha), and Gabbatha, are hopelessly fanciful; and there is no reason to suppose that a fictitious topography would in any way assist the appeal of the gospel to an Ephesian public. The names, whether we are able to identify them on the map or not, cannot reasonably be supposed to have got into the gospel except out of a tradition which associated certain episodes in the life of Jesus (or of John the Baptist) with those sites. (Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 452-53)

The concrete historical and geographic setting of John’s ministry firmly places baptism in the realm of reality. Frederick Dale Bruner (b.1932) advises:

This text keeps baptism from being understood too abstractly as, say, a spiritual and not a physical reality. John was baptizing in this very particular place “because,” we are explicitly told, “there was a lot of water there.” The “water” of our John 3:23 is the water of Jesus’ promise in John 3:5 — the real water with which the Spirit is united in baptism. We do well to be as physical as Jesus and John were. (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 218)

Why does the evangelist include the location of John’s ministry; is he transmitting more than geography? Why does John move his base of operations? Where is the best place to be baptized? Where were you baptized? Does that venue have special significance to you?

There is practicality involved in John’s positioning: Aenon possesses an abundance of water (John 3:23). Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) explicates:

The site chosen for baptism was Aenon near Salim, because there was an ample supply of water. “Aenon” is a Semitic term meaning “springs”; hence John’s mention of “plenty of water” (literally, “many waters,” i.e. springs), which would have made this an ideal site for John’s (and Jesus’) baptismal preaching (Leon Morris [1914-2006] 1995: 210). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 135)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds:

One suggestion for Aenon is a site about seven miles south of Beisan. If this is correct, there is a striking accuracy in the statement that there was “plenty of water” or, more literally, “many waters” there, for in this locality there are seven springs within a radius of a quarter mile. In some such place John pursued his activities. The tense of the last two verbs is continuous and we might give the force of this as “they kept coming and being baptized.” (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 201)

The choice of Aenon is directly related to John the Baptist’s unquestionable popularity. Robert H. Mounce (b.1921) explains:

Since people were “constantly coming to be baptized,” an abundance of water would be required. A.T. Robertson [1863-1934] (Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman, 1933], 54) observes that it was “not for drinking, but for baptizing” and quotes Marcus Dods [1834-1909] as saying, “Therefore even in summer, baptism by immersion could be continued.” (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Luke-Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary))

The popularity of John’s ministry is also affirmed in the Synoptic gospels (Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:7).

The abundance of water makes Aenon an ideal location for John’s ministry on some levels. In other ways, it is inopportune. Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) comments:

The imperfect passive form of the verb to “to baptize” reappears to describe the fact that people came to John and were baptized. (ebaptizonto) (John 3:23). (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 105)

Aenon is off the beaten path. It is so insignificant that it cannot be accurately identified. Seekers had to go out of their way to reach the baptizer. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom commonly espoused by the modern church growth movement.

Reggie McNeal (b. 1955) outlines:

The idea that the church should be growing put a lot of pressure on denominations and church leaders on whose watch the steam had gone out of post-Word War II church expansion...The sprawl of growth rings around cities created economic and social centers in communities close to where people lived and sent their kids to school. This seemed to be the place to locate growing churches. Church growth, many argued, was simply a corollary to the real estate maxim: location, location, location. (McNeal, The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church, 22)

Location is commonly a significant factor in a religious institution’s success. Donald A. McGavran (1897-1990) professes:

Where people live, their geographical location, is an obvious part of the social structure and greatly affects church growth. Throughout Hindu India, the depressed-class ward has been separated from the rest of the village by physical distance—often a hundred yards or more. As people of these wards became Christian and pastors were appointed to shepherd them, the separate location posed a problem to missions. Should the pastor—an educated, respectable Christian—live in the untouchable ward or seek quarters in the upper-caste section of the village? Arguing that it would help Christians more if their pastor lived in a respectable part of the town, missions in North India located their pastors there. Arguing that the pastor’s place was with his people, missions in South India located him in the untouchable ward itself. J. Waskom Pickett [1890-1981] observes that the South India procedure (its use of social structure) was much more successful in terms of creating a genuine Christian church (1933:228). (MacGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 157)

Gary L. McIntosh (b. 1947) recounts:

As I continued to study church growth principles, I became aware of some practical issues...Many of the problems a church faces are not theological. It had interested me that less than a mile away on the other side of the freeway a church with similar theological convictions as the church I served was going through a season of spiritual and numerical growth. After surveying people living on the other side of the freeway, it became clear that they were unwilling to drive over the freeway to where our church was located. The problem was related to the fact that the church I served was located in an increasingly industrialized area. According to most families at that time, an industrial area was not an appropriate area for a church. No matter how much we went door-to-door or advertised our ministry, people were not going to drive the mile over the freeway to our church. (McIntosh, Biblical Church Growth: How You Can Work with God to Build a Faithful Church, 14)

While location plays a factor in the success of many churches, John the Baptist’s appeal gives hope to those who reside in outlying communities. While it can be argued that John the Baptist was not a pastor and did not have a church, it is indisputable that he operated a successful ministry by drawing people to him as opposed to him going to them. For all intents and purposes, Aenon is nowhere. And yet the something John offered was worth enough to draw people to nowhere to receive it.

In what ways is Aenon an ideal location for John the Baptist? How important is geographic location to a ministry’s success; does it ever trump theology? Is there an inappropriate place to plant a church? Why did John the Baptist’s “church” grow in spite of his unfavorable location? How does your church’s geography affect its ministry? How does your physical address influence the place at which you worship? How far would you travel for a meaningful worship experience?

“So much of difference between a triumph and a flop is determined by choice of venue.” - Anatoly Belilovsky (b. 1961), “Kulterkampf”, Gareth D. Jones and Carmelo Rafala (b. 1970),The Immersion Book of Steampunk

Choosing The Wrong Jesus (Mark 15:15)

Who was released in order for Jesus to be crucified? Barabbas.

All four gospels record that a policy existed by which a prisoner was released at Passover (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23:7; John 18:39). At Jesus’ hearing before governor Pontius Pilate, this Passover amnesty gives the spectators a presumably unbalanced choice of whose life to spare - Jesus or a prisoner named Barabbas (Matthew 27:17; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). Matthew records that the alternative was posed by Pilate (Matthew 27:17), Mark attributes it to the priests (Mark 15:11) and John to the mob (John 18:40). Pilate assumes that the crowd will prefer the popular (albeit controversial) young preacher, Jesus, to the bloodthirsty killer. Instead, the crowd chooses the insurrectionist and Jesus is sent to be crucified (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:17-19; John 18:39-40).

Though Barabbas does not speak in the Bible, all four gospels name him (Matthew 27:16, 17, 20, 21, 26; Mark 15:7, 11, 15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). While the descriptions of him vary, the gospels agree that Barabbas deserves to be on trial. Matthew calls him a “notorious prisoner” (Matthew 27:16 NASB). Mark states that he had “committed murder in the insurrection” (Mark 15:7 NASB). John notes that Barabbas was a “robber” (John 18:40). In one of his first sermons, Peter calls him a murderer (Acts 3:14). Barabbas is obviously a known commodity, but exactly who he is cannot be determined as the brief New Testament references do not provide the specifics of his crimes and he is not mentioned outside of the Bible.

John Shelby Spong (b. 1931) acknowledges:

Mystery surrounds Barabbas, who is never mentioned either before this moment or after. He is defined in Mark as one who “committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:7). His evils seems to increase as the later gospels pick up his story. He is “notorious” in Matthew (Matthew 27:16), a bandit in John (John 18:40, NRSV). (Spong, Jesus for the Non-Religious, 168)

The Greek provides little help in identifying his crimes. Allen Black (b. 1951) explains:

Barabbas...was one of several men imprisoned for committing murder in a riot. The nouns which the NIV translates “insurrectionists” and “uprising” [Mark 15:7] are cognate nouns (στασιαστής, stasiastes and στάσις, stasis) which could refer to a range of activities from general rioting to a major insurrection. (Black, Mark (The College Press NIV Commentary), 268)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) adds:

The leader of this revolt seems to have been a popular hero, and may have been a leading Zealot, but little is known of him or his deeds...The fact that Barabbas is introduced prior to the reference to the petitioners in Mark 15:8 suggests that the latter were supporters of the insurgent who came to the forum specifically to ask for his release. (Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 554)

It has been assumed that Barabbas was a prominent figure in a movement resisting the Roman empire. It has even been posited that he belonged to the Sicarii (literally “dagger men”), a group of radical Jewish patriots who pledged to murder Roman rulers and their collaborators whenever possible. Barabbas’ supporters would have perceived him to be a freedom fighter.

Robert H. Gundy (b. 1932) suspects that knowing the specifics of Barabbas’ crimes would only distract from the narrative:

The placement of ἐν τη στάσει, “in the insurrection,” and φόνον, “murder,” before the verb calls attention to the criminality of Barabbas and his fellow prisoners. Against this foil Jesus’ innocence stands out in bold relief: Barabbas deserves to be bound and crucified; Jesus does not. Mark avoids obscuring this apologetic contrast with details concerning the insurrection. (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 926)

As the text leaves his sins to the imagination, Barabbas becomes an abstract but more relatable figure - he is the one who deserves the punishment that Jesus receives.

The name Barabbas is also generic, meaning, “son of a father.” John R. Donahue (b. 1933) dissects:

The proper name here consists of two Aramaic elements: bar meaning “son” and ’abba’ meaning “father.” The derivation from Bar-Rabban (“son of the master”) is less likely. There were rabbis known as “Bar-Abba,” and the practice of using bar plus the father’s name is witnessed in the cases of Simon bar Jona (for Peter; see Matthew 16:17) and Simeon Bar Kokhba (or Kosiba) around 132-135 C.E. Some manuscripts supply Barabbas with the first name “Jesus” in Matthew 27:16. Since one would expect him to have a first name and since it is unlikely that early Christians would have created the name “Jesus” for him there may well be a historical basis for this tradition. In either case the choice presented to the crowd—between Jesus of Nazareth (the real “Son of the Father”) and (Jesus) Barabbas—is rich in irony and in theological significance. (Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina), 432)

Gerrit Vos (1894-1968) declares, “Everyone in the world is in this Barabbas. The man born of a human father.”

As noted, Barabbas’ given name may have been Jesus. The New English Bible even translates his name as such, “Jesus Bar-Abbas” (Matthew 27:16, NEB).

Joel Marcus (b. 1951) analyzes:

Some texts of Matthew 27:16-17, mostly of a Caesarean type... read “Jesus Barabbas” rather than “Barabbas,” and Origen [184-253]acknowledges that some of the manuscripts known to him attest this reading (Commentary on Matthew 121 [on Matthew 27:16-18]). Many scholars think that “Jesus Barabbas” was the original reading in Matthew and that the forename was later suppressed by reverential scribes who felt, as Origen did, that no sinner should bear the name of Jesus...This theory is made more plausible by the observation that the forename has been erased from several manuscripts (see F. Crawford Burkitt [1864-1935], Evangelion da-Mepharreshe 2.277)...Some exegetes...even suggest that “Jesus Barabbas” may have been the original reading in Mark, since “the one called Barabbas” is awkward, and elsewhere ho legomenos is usually preceded by a personal name and followed by a descriptive title or nickname (Matthew 1:16, 4:18, 10:2, 27:17, 22; John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2; Colossians 4:11). There are instances, however, in which ho legomenos is not preceded by the personal name (Matthew 26:3, 14; Luke 22:47; John 4:25, 9:11, 19:17), and awkward expressions are common in Mark. (Marcus, Mark 8-16 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 1028)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

At Mark 15:7 we are introduced to Barabbas, whose name according to a textual variant at Matthew 27:16 was Jesus Barabbas. This, in turn, has led to the suggestion that Pilate misheard the crowd when they were shouting for the release of Jesus Barabbas, thinking they were asking for Jesus of Nazareth. But there is no clear evidence for such a conclusion here, and most of the earliest and best manuscripts do not have the name Jesus appended to Barabbas.(Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 391)

When Barabbas hears his name called, he likely thinks it is to be executed. Much to Barabbas’ surprise and Pilate’s chagrin, the crowd chooses to spare Barabbas instead of Jesus. While the gospels vary on who is most responsible for suggesting Barabbas as an alternative, they are unified in recounting the crowd’s unified decision to release the insurrectionist (Matthew 27:21; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The people not only choose Barabbas, but reject Jesus, demanding his death (Matthew 27:22,23; Mark 15:13; Luke 23:21; John 19:15). The latter decision is more difficult to understand.

Mary Healy (b. 1964) questions:

Why would the crowd demand such a horrible fate for their fellow Jew? Mark does not explain, and leaves it as a question for the reader to contemplate. Perhaps the nationalists in the crowd regard Jesus a threat to the release of their man, Barabbas. Perhaps they regard the kingdom of God that he preached (Mark 1:14-15) as a futile pie-in-the-sky religious quest when what was really needed was violent, military action to liberate Israel. It is also possible that most people in the crowd did not know who Jesus was and were simply willing to go along with the chief priests’ agitation. In either case, they demonstrate chilling indifference to the torments to which they expose him. (Healy, The Gospel of Mark, (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 309)

There is a tragic irony in their shocking selection. Jesus is targeted because of his popularity and growing influence yet the crowds who are responsible for his influence are also behind his execution.

Pilate did not account for an extreme form of peer pressure, mob psychology. The crowd is incited by it religious leaders (Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11). Lamar Williamson, Jr. (b. 1926) examines:

The explicit motivation..is that “the chief priests stirred up the crowd.” The mob is essentially mindless and subject to manipulation. For whatever motives, twice they reject Jesus as king (Mark 15:9, 12), and twice, by acclamation they call for his death: “Crucify him” (Mark 15:13-14). (Williamson, Mark (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 271)

The crowd is stirred into a frenzy, willing to believe the worst about the best regardless of the facts. Passion overrides judgment. Psychology has demonstrated that it takes only a handful of people positioned in strategic places to start a riot.

Leslie J. Francis (b. 1947) determines:

Here is a narrative about crowd psychology. Consider how little responsibility each individual in the crowd took for the release of Barabbas, how little responsibility each individual in the crowd took for the crucifixion of Jesus, how the moral autonomy of the individual is eroded by the power of the crowd. (Francis, Personality Type and Scripture: Exploring Mark’s Gospel, 145)

Barabbas became the popular choice and as is often the case, the popular choice was wrong.

When have you made a decision simply to follow the crowd? Why do the spectators choose Barabbas? When have you seen a popular choice proven wrong? Have you ever seen religious officials lead their followers astray? Is Barabbas’ inclusion in each gospel evidence of substitutionary atonement? Compare and contrast Jesus and Barabbas.

The two figures are intended to be contrasted. Not only are Jesus’ and Barabbas’ names similar, but they find themselves in very similar positions. Both wish to save their people, Barabbas from Rome; Jesus from sin and death.

Theodore W. Jennings (b. 1942) recognizes:

Jesus and Barabbas belong together in some odd way...It really doesn’t matter how far we seek to distinguish the strategy of Jesus from that of Barabbas. Jesus himself does not condemn Barabbas, even if he does seem to embody a different way of confronting the imperial authorities. Instead, he dies in his place. If Jesus’ death may be literally said to be a ransom for another, that other is first of all none other than Barabbas, the terrorist, the assassin. (Jennings, Transforming Atonement: A Political Theology of the Cross, 32)

M. Eugene Boring (b. 1935) adds:

Many Gentile Christians could be expected to see “Barabbas” as an ironic counterpart to Jesus, the true Son of the Father. The parallel and contrast may go further: Barabbas has already been convicted of insurrection and sentenced to death, but will escape; Jesus is falsely accused of insurrection and will die in Barabbas’ place, although he is innocent and has not been convicted or sentenced. During the whole period from the Roman takeover of Palestine (63 BCE) to the actual revolt in 66 CE, the only people crucified in Palestine were those convicted of being revolutionaries and their followers. It is important for Mark and his readers to distinguish Jesus from revolutionaries such as Barabbas. The point will again be made at the cross, where those crucified as actual revolutionaries will dissociate themselves from Jesus (Mark 15:32). (Boring, Mark: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 420-21)

Barabbas serves as a stark reminder of the grim reality of the situation - he should have been the one to die. Gary W. Charles (b. 1954) concludes:

Barabbas...is chiefly a Markan foil to advance the story by emphasizing the dramatic injustice being done to Jesus. The tragic irony is advanced when the same crowd that had shouted “Hosanna” at the entrance to Jerusalem (Mark 11:9) is now manipulated by the chief priests to shout “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:14). Ironically, Jesus, the one who can save lives (Hosanna means “Save now” in Hebrew) is rejected in favor of one who has taken life. (Brian K. Blount [b. 1955] and Charles, Preaching Mark in Two Voices, 235)

The crowd’s choice is also indicative of a greater ideology. Barabbas represents the world’s way of doing things while Jesus presents a radical alternative. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) exclaims:

The crowd preferred Jesus Bar-Abbas to Jesus Bar-Joseph, the real son of the Father!...Why? Because Barabbas was a grotesque form of the Messiah Israel wanted! He was a leading Zealot, a political activist who had taken to the bandit trail. He was a man of action who would even murder to reach his own ends (cf. Acts 3:14; Matthew 27:16; Luke 23:19; John 18:40). In the twisted thinking of some, he was a patriot. His vitality and elan appealed to the mob. Jesus, however, had disappointed them with his inaction. The people chose lawlessness instead of righteousness, violence instead of love, war instead of peace. The world is still the same. (Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, Volume Two (Preaching the Word), 193)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) laments:

The choice of Barabbas represents the human preference for the one who represents our narrow personal hopes—in this particular case, a perverted nationalism. He appeals to our basic instinct to protect our interests, with violence if necessary. In contemporary culture, we have been indoctrinated to prefer the violent answer over the peaceful one...Our heroes become the Barbbases of the world, who take matters into their own hands and dispatch the enemy with brute force or clever trickery. If the vote came today, then, Barabbas would likely win again, hands down. (Garland, Mark (The NIV Application Commentary), 583)

The contrast between Jesus and Barabbas is illustrated in the work of British artist George Tinworth (1843-1913). In 1882, Tinworth produced a terra cotta relief called “The Release of Barabbas” (pictured). There is perfect symmetry between the scene’s three principal figures - Barabbas, Pilate and Jesus. Pilate occupies the painting’s center, situated between a bound solemn Jesus and Barabbas whose hands are free. Inscribed beneath Barabbas are the words, “The World’s Choice” while the marker beneath Jesus reads, “The Good Shepherd” (John 10:11). Tinworth was correct. The world tends to choose poorly, continually favoring Barabbas over Jesus.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) resolves:

The story of Barabbas invites us to see Jesus’ crucifixion in terms of a stark personal exchange. Barabbas deserves to die; Jesus dies instead, and he goes free. Barabbas was the archetypical Jewish rebel: quite probably what we today would call a fanatical right-wing zealot, determined to stop at nothing to bring in a version of God’s kingdom which consisted of defeating Roman power by Roman means – in other words, repaying pagan violence with holy violence. No doubt many Christians in Mark’s community, and others who would read his book, had at one stage at least flirted with such revolutionary movements. Reading the story of the guilty man freed and the innocent man crucified, it would not be hard for them to identify with Barabbas, and to view the rest of the story with the awestruck gaze of people who think, ‘There but for God’s grace go I.’ (Wright, Mark for Everyone, 209)

Who will you choose, Jesus or Barabbas? What do you think became of Barababas, a man who was lived because Jesus died? How has this same phenomenon affected you?

“Pilate told the people that they could spare the life of either a murderer named Barabbas or Jesus of Nazareth, and they chose Barabbas. Given the same choice, Jesus, of course, would have chosen to spare Barabbas too.” - Frederick Buechner (b. 1926), Peculiar Treasures: A Biblical Who’s Who, p. 15