Chapter # 1 Paragraph # 2 Study # 8
October 23, 2018
Moss Bluff, Louisiana
(022)
1901 ASV
5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and [
had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.
7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
1769 KJV
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
- I. The Impact of John's "Coming".
- A. Those who "went out" into the wilderness to him.
- 1. "All the region of Judea".
- a. According to Bullinger's extensively researched Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, there are at least two figures of speech in this verse.
- 1) There is what is called "metonomy of subject" where "Judea" is used as a figure used to denote the "inhabitants" of Judea, rather than the geographical area known as Judea.
- 2) There is what is called "synecdoche of the whole" where "all Judea" means "people from every part of Judea".
- 3) The point is that Mark is using figures of speech to indicate that every region of the geographical area known as Judea had human representatives in the group that went out to see John. He did not mean that every inhabitant of Judea went out to John because that would have been hyperbole and, as exaggeration, would not have been helpful seeing that he wanted to establish a legitimate thesis (hyperbole sometimes undercuts legitimacy).
- b. Mark's point is that John was sought out by a very large number of people from Judea as an indication that the whole land of those people that were to be prepared for the coming of the Lord was represented.
- 2. As noted in the translations given above, there is a difference in the kind of meaning that is being presented.
- a. The ASV says "all they of Jerusalem" went out to John. Taken literally, this would mean that every inhabitant of Jerusalem went out to John, which is extremely improbable given the numbers involved with each having their own set of circumstances to "adjust" to a trip out into the wilderness (some being, for instance, out of town for an extended trip to places long distances away, some being ill, lame, blind, poverty stricken, some not even interested in going out to a "radical" preacher, etc., etc.).
- b. The reason for this translation, in distinction from that of the KJV included above, is a difference in the underlying Greek texts as well as a translational choice that has another option. The Greek text underlying the ASV is translated "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem", but, as noted above, this inserts a very likely hyperbole which would not help Mark's cause. Interestingly, the KJV follows a Greek text that eliminates the "problem" involved (an unhelpful use of hyperbole). This text puts the placement of the "all" in the sentence away from "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" to a place just after the verb "they were being baptized" so that it is definitively clear that Mark did not mean "all they of Jerusalem" went out, but that "all who went out were being baptized". This text is seen by the editors of the text behind the ASV as sufficiently insignificant that they do not even entertain the possibility of its legitimacy, but their opinion is just their opinion. The point here is this: even the transmission of the text reveals that some saw a "problem". That "problem" is the appearance of hyperbole and its unhelpfulness to Mark's argument. For this cause, I, personally, think the "problem" existed, so someone altered the text. This would mean that the Textus Receptus on this verse does not record Mark's actual words, but records a "problem-eliminating" text instead. In other words, it is more likely that Mark's actual Greek was a bit awkward than it is likely that the Textus Receptus is a record of his actual words. By "a bit awkward" I mean there is a possibility that his placement of "all" was intended to be attached to the following verb rather than "the inhabitants of Jerusalem", but that is an "awkward" stretch for most translators (not impossible, but sufficiently awkward as to make most unwilling to go there). In any case, Mark did not mean every single inhabitant of Jerusalem was sufficiently motivated by what they heard of John to go out into the wilderness to see him. He is either using hyperbole or awkward Greek (which is not impossible even in an inspired text).
- 3. His actual point is this: John's "coming on the scene" created such a large impact that the crowds going out to see him from every sector of Judea and Jerusalem meant something: Mark's point, that John was a fulfillment of the type of meaning found in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1.
- B. The fact of their willingness to "be baptized" by John.
- 1. This meant that they had embraced the message he was preaching. This is no small thing since it was not considered to be a legitimate message by the "official" doctrine of Judaism (Matthew 21:25).
- 2. This also meant, more basically, that they considered John a true prophet from the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matthew 21:26). He was a true Levite (Luke 1:5). He was supernaturally conceived by a barren, post-menopausal mother (Luke 1:7, 18). He was remarkable in his way of living, being filled by the Spirit of God from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). Jesus, Himself, said that John was "greater" than all who were born of a woman (Luke 7:28). King Herod was so impressed by John that after he murdered him to please his "wife" that he considered Jesus a "resurrected John" (Mark 6:16).
- 3. The baptisms occurred in the Jordan River. The Jordan River was extremely notable in the Jewish consciousness as the "line of demarcation" between non-Jewish lands and the kingdom inheritance of the people of God. Going to the Jordan to be baptized was significant in that it signaled an "act" that qualified the people to inherit the promises of the Kingdom.
- C. The "confession of their sins".
- 1. Clearly "the sins" is plural, but it cannot mean that they confessed everything they had ever done that was "sinful". However, this "plurality" does seem to mean that they were not simply confessing their "sinfulness", but, rather, specific sins.
- 2. Thus, the confession has to be taken as a "token" of the desire to be forgiven that was evidenced by their "acknowledgement" of, probably, their most "sinful" sins (the ones that stuck out in their minds as they approached God for "forgiveness"). This is in harmony with the reality behind 1 John 1:9 where John strongly implies that we can only confess what we remember but that does not cover "all unrighteousness", so God simply includes the forgotten because of His gracious recognition that confession of what is remembered indicates a longing to be "right" with God.
