Mark 1:1
Beginning of the glad-message of Jesus Christ.

26trans - Beginning the Good News about Jesus Christ--Beck; The First
Word of the Good Tidings of...--Rieu;
Somers - The genitive case defines or describes an essential
relationship or an essential quality. "of the gospel" and "of Jesus
Christ" are in the genitive. This "beginning" that Mark is dealing
with has to do with the "good news" and essentially it is the good
news about Jesus Christ.
Ear105 - The Greek word, as is commonly known, is euangelion, which
literally means "good news." It comes from the verb euangelizo,
"announce glad tidings." In the NT "the gospel" is the good news of
salvation through Jesus Christ.
What did Mark mean when he wrote, "The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ"? Today we use the term Gospel (capitalized)
for one of the four accounts of Christ's life and ministry. So some
have taken this as meaning the beginning of this particular Gospel.
But the word euangelion was not then used for a book (one of our
four Gospels). As Gerhard Friedrich points out, euangelion was not
used for a book of the NT until the second century (TDNT). So Mark
is not referring to the "beginning" of his Gospel.
What does he mean, then? Rather obviously, the reference
is to the ministry of John the Baptist, which immediately follows
(vv.2-8). That was the beginning of the good news about Jesus
Christ (vs.7-8).
Ear106 - Of or About? "Jesus Christ" is in the genitive case in the
Greek text. Unfortunately, this case has several varying usages.
"The gospel of Jesus Christ" might be taken as meaning the gospel
belonging to Him (possessive genitive). But the more obvious
meaning is the good news about Christ (objective genitive). So the
best translation is "the gospel about Jesus Christ." This is the
"gospel" we preach today.
Ear106 - The Son of God. The words whiou theou are found in our oldest
extant manuscript of the Greek NT (Vaticanus of the fourth
century), as well as in two fifth-century manuscripts. They are
missing in the original text of Sinaiticus, the only other
fourth-century manuscript. Unfortunately, we have no third-century
papyrus of Mark's Gospel. It is interesting to note that F.C.Grant,
in his "Exegesis of the Gospel of Mark" in The Interpreter's Bible,
says that the two words "were probably in the original". Most
scholars agree that the theological purpose of Mark in his Gospel
was to stress the deity of Jesus.
R781 - Although arche is anarthrous, it is definite because it is used
as part of the title of the book. (Cham57).
TGr27f. - Vs. 1 and 4 should be taken together, with the intervening
material regarded as a parenthesis. Thus, the resultant meaning is
"John the Baptist, baptizing...and preaching..., was the beginning
of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
T211 - Iesou Christou is used as an objective genitive, "about Jesus
Christ."
T307 - Mark's fondness for including the verb "to be" is against the
interpretation, "the beginning of the gospel is as it is
written..." (when Mark omits the stative verb, it is best to
translate the text as such).
DM272 - RELATIVE CLAUSES. Uses of the Relative. The Indicative with
Relative Clauses. (5) Purpose Clauses. The relative clause may
express purpose. "...Who will prepare the way of thee." (The
purpose of John's coming was to prepare the way for Jesus.)
Wuest11 - Beginning, arche, "beginning, origin, the person or thing that
commences, the first person or thing in a series"; used whithout
the definite article, showing that the expression is a kind of
title. It is the beginning, not of Mark's book, but of the facts of
the gospel. Mark shows from the prophets that the gospel was to
begin by the sending forth of a forerunner. Each evangelist has a
different starting point. Mark begins with the work of John the
baptist, Matthew with the ancestry and birth of the Messiah, Luke
with the birth of the Baptist, and John with the preincarnate Word.
"Of the gospel," euaggelion, "a message of good news."
This word was in common use in the first century for good news of
any kind. The proclamation of the accession of a new Roman emperor
was entitled "good news." The evangelists appropriate the word,
take it out of the current secular usage, and speak of the message
of salvation as good news.
"Of Jesus Christ," Iesous, the transliterated form of the
Hebrew word we know as Jehoshua, which means, "Jehovah saves;"
Christos, the transliterated form of the Greek word which means
"The Anointed One;" in the first name we have the deity, humanity,
and atonement of our Lord, in the second, the fact that He is the
Anointed of God, to Israel, its Messiah. These words are in the
objective genitive; the good news is not preached by Jesus Christ
but is concerning Him. The message announces Him. "The Son of
God;" this title is implicit in the name "Christ," for the Anointed
of God is the Son. Therefore, its addition here must indicate that
Mark wishes to inform the reader that he will present our Lord from
that point of view. The word "Son" is without the article in the
Greek text. Emphasis is therefore upon character or nature. Jesus
Christ is Son of God by nature. That is, He proceeds by eternal
generation from God the Father in a birth which never took place
because it always was. By virtue of all this, He possesses
co-eternally, the same essence as God the Father. The article is
absent before the word "God," showing that absolute Deity as such
is in view. 
Translation: "The beginning of the good news concerning 
Jesus Christ, Son of God."
McGarvey263 - "The beginning of the gospel. -- Not the beginning
absolutely considered, but Mark's beginning, each of the other
historians having a beginning different from this. Matthew begins
with the genealogy and birth of Jesus; Luke, with the announcement
to Zachariah concerning the birth of John; John, with the
pre-existence of the Word and the testimony of John the Baptist;
Mark, with a brief account of John's ministry introductory to the
baptism and the ministry of Jesus.
"the Son of God.--Unlike Matthew, who introduces Jesus
first as "Son of David, son of Abraham" (Mt. 1:1), Mark introduces
him at once as "the Son of God." With a view to Gentile readers, he
emphasizes the relation of Jesus to God rather than tat to Abraham
and the Jewish people.

Mark 1:2
<According as it is written in Isaiah the prophet--
Lo! I send my messenger before thy face,
Who shall prepare thy way,--

26trans - Even as it is written--ASV; it stands written--NEB; In
accordance with the Scripture--Rieu; in Isaiah the prophet; Here is
my herald whom I send--NEB; See, I am sending My messenger--Wey;
Attention! I will send My messenger--Nor; before thee--Knox; ahead
of you--Ber; who shall prepare thy way--ASV; to prepare the way for
you--Mof;
Somers - "it has been written" = Perfect Passive Indicative. "I send" =
Present Active Indicative. Could this be a futuristic present that
denotes an event which has not yet occurred, but which is regarded
as so certain that in thought it may be contemplated as already
coming to pass. Is this not just the way the prophet of God saw
this coming event? "will prepare" = Future Active Indicative. 
Ear106 - As It Is Written. The Greek verb is in the perfect tense
(gegraptai), which stresses both completed action and a continuing
state. The full force of the Greek is: "Even as it has been written
and still stands written"--a mighty affirmation of the divine
inspiration and authority of the OT Scriptures. This should be
remembered when we read the simple English translation "As it is
written." Emphasizing the "is" will help to bring this out.
Ear107 - The Prophets or Isaiah the Prophet? The evidence of the Gk.
manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, Theta-- representing the
Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean families of texts) clearly
indicates that "Isaiah the prophet" (NASB, NIV) is the correct
reading. If so, why one may ask, do so many of the later
manuscripts have "the prophets"?
The answer seems obvious. Mark quotes first (v.2) from
Mal. 3:1. But then (v.3) he quotes from Isaiah (40:3). Some later
scribe, bothered by this seeming inconsistency, sought to
straighten out the matter by changing the text.
It would seem that Mark had mainly in mind the quotation
from Isaiah--which is found in all the other three Gospels--and
inserted, somewhat parenthetically, the shorter quotation from
Malachi.
R960 - The relative clause with the future verb, hos kataskeuasei 
..., portrays the idea of purpose (cf. Luke 7:27). (Cham164,190).
Wuest12,3 - "As," kathos, "according as, even as, just as;" the Gk. word
is stronger than the English adverb, emphaxizing an accurate
reproduction of what one has spoken or written. 
"It is written," gegraptai; the perfect tense, speaking
of an act completed in past time having present results, is used
here to emphasize the fact that the OT records were not only
carefully preserved and handed down from generation to generation
to the first century, but that they are a permanent record of what
God said. They are, in the language of the Psalmist, "forever
settled in heaven." One can translate, "It has been written, with
the present result that it is on record," or, "it stands written."
"In the prophets." The best Greek texts have "in Isaiah
the prophet." The quotation is from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. As
to the apparent discrepancy here, Robertson says that it was common
to combine quotations from the prophets. Bruce, in Expositor's
Greek Testament, says, "An inaccuracy doubtless, but not through
error of memory, but through indifference to greater exactness, the
quotation from Isaiah being what chiefly occupied the mind. It is
somewhat analagous to attraction in grammer."
"Behold," idou, a word used to give a pecular vivacity to
the style by bidding the reader or hearer to attend to what is
said.
"I send," apostello, literally, "to send someone off"
from one's self; The word is used in an early secular document in
the clause, "to proceed with the officers sent for this purpose."
The sense here is that the officers were commissioned to do
something. In Herodotus and the LXX, the noun form of this word is
used for an ambassador or an envoy. Thus, the Baptist was an
ambassador or envoy representing God, and sent on a commission to
perform certain duties.
"Messenger," aggelos; in a 2 B.C., manuscript, envoys,
whose names are given; the verb form means "to proclaim." Thus, the
word refers to a messenger who is an envoy bearing a message. The
Greek word comes into English in the word "angel," and is so given
in its proper context in the NT.
"Which" is a masculine relative pronoun in the original.
Translate "who."
"Prepare," kataskeuazo, used in the papyri with reference
to the visit of a Roman senator to the Fayum. Directions are given
for his welcome; "take care that at the proper places the
guest-chambers be got ready." The verb means, "to furnish, equip,
prepare, make ready."
"Way," hodos, "a travelled way, a road." The idea would
be clearer if one translated by the word "road."
The pronouns "they" and "thee" refer, in Isaiah 40:3 to
"our God," and in Malachi 3:1 to "the Lord." In the coming of God
the Son, Messiah of Israel is referred to, John the Baptist, his
fore-runner.
Translation: "Behold, I will send my envoy on a
commission before your face, who will make ready your road."
McGarvey263,4 - "in the prophets.--Two prophets are here quoted; the
passage beginning, "Behold, I send my messenger," being taken from
Malachi 3:1; and that beginning, "The voice of one crying," being
taken from Isaiah 40:3. If the reading, "in the prophets," be
retained, there is no difficulty in the passage; but if the
reading, "in the prophet Isaiah," which is preferred by the
critics...be substituted, it presents the difficulty of two
passages from two different prophets being both apparently referred
to one of them. Besides the great weight of authority exhibited in
the critical note in favor of the latter reading, it has in its
favor the consideration that it is less likely to have been the
result of a change. If it had been the original reading, there
would have been a temptation to substitute "in the prophets," in
order to get rid of the difficulty just stated; whereas, if "in the
prophets" had been the original, there would have been not only no
temptation to make the change, but a reason for not making it. We
accept, therefore, the corrected reading, and suppose that "in the
prophets" was adopted by transcribers in order to avoid the
difficulty, and because they thought that a mistake had been made
by former copyists. We suppose also that Mark's reason for
mentioning Isaiah and omitting the name of Malachi, was that the
essential part of the quotation was that taken from the former
prophet.
"my messenger."--The passage in Malachi (Mal. 3:1-6) from
which this is an extract, has unmistakable reference to the
Messiah, and the messenger to be sent before his face can be no
other than John. We can see for ourselves that Mark's application
of the words is correct.
Barclay2,3 - The prophetic quotation which Mark uses is suggestive.
I send my messenger before you and he will prepare your
road for you. This is from Malachi 3:1. In its original context it
is a threat. In Malachi's day the priests were failing in their
duty. The offerings were blemished and shhoddy second-bests; the
service of the temple was to them a weariness. The messenger was to
come to cleanse and purify the worship of the temple before The
Anointed One of God emerged upon the earth. So then the coming of
Christ is a purification of life. And the world needed that
purification. Seneca called Rome "a cesspool of iniquity." Juvenal
spoke of her "as the filthy sewer into which flowed the abominable
dregs of every Syrian and Achaean stream." Wherever Christianity
comes it brings purification.
That happens to be a fact capable of factual
demonstration. Bruce Barton tells how the first important
journalistic assignment that fell to him was to write a series of
articles designed to expose Billy Sunday, the evangelist. Three
towns were chose. "I talked to the merchants," Bruce Barton writes,
"and they told me that during the meetings and afterward people
walked up to the counter and paid bills which were so old that they
had long since been written off the books." He went to visit the
president of the chamber of commerce of a town that Billy Sunday
had visited three years before. "I am not a member of any church,"
he said. "I never attend but I'll tell you one thing. If it was
proposed now to bring Billy Sunday to this town, and if we knew as
much about the results of his work in advance as we do now, and if
the churches would not raise the necessary funds to bring him, I
could raise the money in half a day from men who never go to
church. He took eleven thousand dollars out of here, but a circus
comes here and takes out that amount in one day and leaves nothing.
He left a different moral atmosphere." The exposure that Bruce
Barton meant to write became a tribute to the cleansing power of
the Christian message. When Billy Graham preached in Shreveport,
Louisiana, liquor sales dropped by 40 per cent. and the sale of
Bibles increased 300 per cent. During a mission in Seattle, amongst
the results there is stated quite simply, "Several impending
divorce actions were cancelled." In Greensboro, North Carolina, the
report was that "the entire social structure of the city was
affected." One of the great stories of what Christianity can do
comes from the history of the mutiny of the Bounty. The mutineers
from that ship were put ashore on Pitcairn Island. There were nine
mutineers, six native men, ten native women and a girl, fifteen
years old. One of them succeeded in making crude alcohol. A
terrible situation ensued. They all died except Alexander Smith,
Smith chanced upon a Bible. He read it and he made up his mind to
build up a state with the natives of that island based directly on
the Bible; whatever it said, they would do. It was twenty years
before an American sloop called at the island. They found a
completely Christian community. There was no gaol because there was
no crime. There was no hospital because there was no disease. There
was no asylum because there was no insanity. There was no
illiteracy; and nowhere in the world was human life and property so
safe. Christianity had cleansed that society. Where Christ is
allowed to come the antiseptic of the Christian faith cleanses the
moral poison of society and leaves it pure and clean. 


Mark 1:3
A voice of one crying aloud--
/In the wilderness\ prepare ye the way of the Lord,
/Straight\ be making his paths>

26trans - Hark! Someone is shouting in the desert--Gspd; The voice of
one crying aloud: in the desert--Wey; Make the way ready for the
Lord--Nor; Get the Lord's way ready--Gspd; Make ready a road for
the Lord--Mon; clear a straight path for him--NEB; level the paths
for him--Mof; make His beaten- tracks straight (level and
passable)--Amp;
Somers - "of [one] crying" = Present Active genitive participle
describing "voice". "prepare ye" = Aorist Active Imperative. "make"
(straight) = Present Active Imperative. You "prepare" the way by
constantly making the paths straight. Israel should have been doing
this right along but it took the promised prophet of God to get the
job done. 
Ear107 - Wilderness. Today the term "wilderness" conjures up a mental
picture of a wooded area, often with heavy underbrush. But the
so-called Wilderness of Judea, which stretches from Jerusalem and
Bethlehem eastward some 20 miles down to the Jordan River and the
Dead Sea, is a barren region of rugged hills and valleys. So it
would seem that "desert" communicates the true picture more
accurately.
T151 - The participle here has a substantival usage, "voice of a
herald."
Cham29 - Genitive. c. It may describe from the standpoint of source,
then it is called the genitive of source: trichas kamelou 'made of
camel's hair.'
Wuest13,4 - "The voice"; no definite article in the Greek text. The
Baptist was not the only mouthpiece of God sent to Israel. John
only claimed to be "a voice," not "the voice" (John 1:23). The One
for whom he made ready the road, was the Son of God, the unique
Son, Himself, Very God.
"Of one crying," boao, "to cry aloud, to shout, to speak
with a high, strong voice." Kaleo in classic usage meant "to cry
out" for a purpose, boao, "to cry out" as a manifestation of
feeling. The preaching of the Baptist was full of emotion, of
feeling. It came from the heart, and was addressed to the heart.
John said, "I am a voice of One shouting out in the wilderness"
(John 1:23). The One shouting out was God. John was His mouthpiece.
Back of John's preaching to Israel, and in and through it, was the
infinite longing of the God of Israel for His chosen people. The
heart of God was in that message, full of pathos and love and
entreaty. "In the wilderness," eremos; the word signifies "a
solitary, lonely, desolate, uninhabited place." Here it refers to
the uncultivated regions fit for pasturage in Judaea.
"Prepare," hetoimazo, "to make ready, prepare." Thayer
says when it is used as here to prepare the way (hodos road) of the
Lord, it is used as a figure "drawn from the oriental custom of
sending on before kings on their journeys persons to level the
roads and make them passablle," thus, "to prepare the minds of men
to give the Messiah a fit reception and secure His blessings." The
verb is in the plural number, thus addressed to Israel. it is
aorist in tense and imperative in mode, thus, issuing a summary
command given with military snap and curtness, and was a command to
be obeyed at once. That was the character of the preaching of the
Baptist. His was no pussy-footing, no beating about the bush, no
smooth, oily, namby-pamby preaching. The Baptist was a man among
men, and his preaching was straight from the shoulder.
"The way of the Lord"; "way" is again hodos, a road.
"Lord" is kurios, used of a person who is the possessor and
disposer of a thing, the master. It is the word used in the LXX to
translate the august title of God which we know as Jehovah. The
Ancient of Days was to incarnate Himself in humanity, grow up from
a little child to manhood, and offer Himself to Israel as its
Messiah, its King. His road needed to be prepared, that is, the
heartsof His Chosen People must be ready. John's ministry was to
see to it that Israel was ready to welcome its Messiah. The word
"Lord" is without the article, the emphasis being upon character or
quality. The road is a Lord's road, of such a quality as would
belong to Jehovah. 
"Make His paths straight." The verb "make" is present
imperative, issuing a command to be obeyed continuously. It should
be a habit with Israel, a constant attitude, not a formal, abrupt
welcome and that is all, but a welcome that would extend on and on,
an habitual welcome that would be the natural expression of the
heart. "Straight" is euthus, meaning "straight, level." Robertson
speaks of the wonderful Persian roads made for the couriers of the
king, and then for the king himself, and of the Roman Empire, knit
together by roads, some of which are in existence today. This word
is not only used of straight and livel roads, but also of a right
way of life, as in II Peter 2:15, where the word is used with hodos
(road). "Paths" is tribolos, "a worn path, a path." The expression
does not refer to a literal path or road down which the Lord would
travel, but to the hearts of the people of Israel, and His entrance
among them.
Translation: "A voice of One shouting out in the
uninhabited place, Prepare the Lord's road. Straight and level be
constantly making His paths."
McGarvey34 - "The voice."--That John was certainly the person spoken of
by Isaiah as "the voice crying in the wilderness," is evident from
the fact that he alone, among all the great preachers known to
history, chose a wilderness as his place of preaching. All others,
not excepting Jesus and his apostles, went into the cities and
villages where the people could be found: John alone began and
ended in the wilderness, the people going out to him instead of his
going to the people.
"Prepare ye the way."-- The object of John's mission was
to prepare the people for Jesus and for the subsequent preaching of
the apostles. (See Luke 1:17). Here this preparation is
figuratively represented by the physical preparation of a path by
straightening it, and thus making the journey over it more rapid
and less laborious.


Mark 1:4
John the Immerser came, /in the wilderness\ proclaiming an 
immersion of repentance, for remission of sins:

26trans - John came, who baptized in the wilderness--ASV; John the
baptizer appeared in the wilderness--RSV; John came, he who
immersed in the wilderness--ABUV; proclaiming a baptism in token of
repentance--NEB; and preached repentance and baptism--Gspd;
proclaiming a baptism of the penitent--Wey; and preached the
immersion of repentance--ABUV; and was preaching a baptism
conditioned on repentance--Wms; proclaiming baptism as the mark of
a complete change of heart--Phi; for the forgiveness of sins--NASB;
to have their sins forgiven--Beck; to obtain the forgiveness of
sins--Wms; 
Somers - "came" = Aorist Deponent Indicative. "the [one] baptizing" =
Present Active nominative participle. John was known for his
preaching and his baptizing since it was especially a baptizing of
Jews. This was absolutely unheard of. "Proclaiming" = Present
Active nominative participle. "a baptism of repentance". "of
repentance" is a genitive of description. It was a baptism whose
essential point was repentance. It was a "repentance" baptism. The
main concern of the preaching of John was "repentance." Therefore
no one would be baptized unless they had repented. This was an
adult baptism only. "for forgiveness of sins". "for forgiveness"
starts with the preposition eis which is translated by several
words but can almost if not always be translated by "into" and make
good sense. This preposition always used the accusative case which
is the case whose root meaning embraces three ideas: the end, or
direction, or extent of motion or action. The root idea is
limitation. So this is a "baptism" whose end or goal or purpose is
"forgiveness of sins." Some commentators go to great lengths trying
to make a causal use of eis. Their strangulating of scriptures
would make this verse mean he preached a baptism of repentance
because their sins had already been forgiven. They can't really
believe that forgiveness comes before repentance! No one can accept
that. Liddel-Scott list no causal meanings for eis and all of the
passages where the causal meaning has been suggested can be more
naturally understood with the "end or direction or extent of motion
or action" of the accusative case. It is "for the forgiveness of
sins."
Ear107,8 - A Baptism of Repentance. John preached a repentance- baptism.
He baptized people only "as they were confessing out their sins"
(v.5, literal Gk.). He required genuine repentance as a condition
for being baptized.
What is repentance? The Greek noun metanoia literally
means "a change of mind." It is more than emotional sorrow, which
too often does not produce any change of life. Rather, it is a
change of mind, or attitude, toward God, sin, and ourselves. Deep
repentance involves a real turnabout in life and prepares us to
believe savingly in Jesus Christ.
Ear108 - Remission. "Remission" is a correct translation but the term is
rarely heard today. The Greek word aphesis was used for a "release"
from captivity (Lk. 4:18; 14:9) and also for a "pardon" from
punishment or a "cancellation" of guilt. A&G suggest "forgiveness"
for the rest of the passages in the NT where it occurs.
Ear108 - Of or By? One of the most common archaic forms in the King
James Version is the use of the preposition "of" for "by." The
Greek here clearly says, "were being baptized by [hupo] him in the
Jordan River."
R1127 - The participle kerusson has the notion of manner (the participle
is not the periphrastic construction with egeneto), "John
appeared...preaching."
T151 - The participle baptizon has a substantival force ("the baptizer";
cf. BD413[1]).
T211 - Metanoias is used as a subjective genitive; baptism does not lead
to, but springs from, repentance (an appositional genitive,
"baptism involving repentance"?--T214; cf. R496). [Ed. Turner's
comment may not be inaccurate, but this particular genitive
specifies John's unique type of baptism (cf. Matt. 31:ff).] DM76 -
(1) The Genitive of Description. This clearly the use of the
genitive which lies closest to its root meaning. In fact, this
usage is so very near the root meaning of the case, that we find
difficulty in fixing exact limits. All genitives are more or less
descriptive. Blass correctly observes that this is the most
extensive use of the genitive. When a genitive stands out boldly in
its typical significance, without shading off into combination with
some contextual idea, we then classify ti as a descriptive
genitive. "A baptism of repentance."
Wuest15,16 - Egeneto, second aorist verb of ginomai, literally, "to
become." Used of a person's appearance on the stage of history. Not
handled by the A.V. "There arose John," in accordance with and in
fulfilment of the prophecies mentioned in vs. 2 & 3. The verb is
used here to show that the appearance of the Baptist was not a mere
event in history, but an epoch, ushering in a new regime or
dispensation of God's dealings with mankind.
"Did baptize," ho baptizon, an article and participle,
literally, "There arose John" 'the one who baptizes,' the latter
phrase being the particular description by which he would be known.
Thus we have John the Baptist. For a study of the Gk. word
"baptize," see the author's book, Studies in the Vocabulary of the
Greek New Testament, pages 70-76. Here the classical usage is
presented, and the koine usage in the LXX, papyri, and NT. For our
purpose here we might say that the word has three usages in the NT,
a ceremonial one, where the saved person is baptized as a testimony
of his salvation, such as I Cor. 1:14, 16, [Baptist theology show
through here] and we would call that water baptism; then, a
mechanical one, where a person or thing is introduced or placed
into a new environment or into union with something else so as to
alter its condition or its relationship to its previous environment
or condition, such as I Cor. 12:13; Romans 6:3, which we would call
Spirit baptism, and a metaphorical use such as Matthew 20:22,23.
The general and common use of the word was that of placing a thing
into a new environment, into something else. The word means
literally, "to place into." Since the ritual of water baptism
involved that action, the Greek word meaning "to place into," came
to signify also what we mean by the act of administering the rite
of water baptism. Thus John came to be called, "The one who
baptizes," or in short, "The Baptist."
It will be helpful to trace briefly the idea of baptism
from the OT into the NT. The ceremonial washings of the Levitical
ordinances were in the LXX referred to by the word louo. This Greek
word is found in Acts 22:16 in connection with the word baptizo in
the expression "Be baptized and wash away thy sins." In Mark 7:4,
Luke 11:38, and Hebrews 9:10, the ceremonial washings referred to
were designated as baptizo, and the word translated "wash." The
word baptizo was thus not unknown to the Jews. It represented or
was symbolic of the cleansing from sin which followed the offering
of an expiatory sacrifice. But with the coming of John, a radical
change took place. While the ceremonial washings of Leviticus were
performed by the person himself, with one exception, and that was
where Moses in installing Aaron and his sons, himself washed them
(Lev. 8:6), John baptized his converts. We must be careful to note
that the baptism of which we are now speaking, is not Christian
baptism, but a baptism connected with Israel and its acceptance of
its Messiah.
"In the wilderness." Same word as in 1:3, speaking of the
deserted region of Judaea, the place being the Jordan River.
"Preach," kerusso, "to be a herald; to officiate as a
herald; to proclaim after the manner of a herald;" Thayer says,
"Always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and authority
which must be listened to and obeyed." It means generally, "to
publish, proclaim, proclaim openly." It is used in the NT of the
public proclamation of the gosple and material pertaining to it,
made by John the Baptist, our Lord, the apostles and other
Christian leaders. The noun, kerux, means "a herald, a messenger
vested with public authority who conveyed the official messages of
kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, or who gave a
public summons or demand." The English word "preach" brings to our
mind, a minister of the gospel in his pulpit expounding the Word of
God. But the word Mark uses here, pictures John as a herald with an
official proclamation from a coming King, the Messiah of Israel. He
acted as one, making a public proclamation of the news of the
advent of the Messiah with such formality, gravity, and authority
as must be listened to and obeyed. The coming of the forerunner and
then of the King, had to Israel the atmosphere of the words kerusso
and kerux about them (Mt. 21:1-11). It is interesting to note the
words having to do with an official herald, envoy, and ambassador
which Mark uses of John, kerusso, aggelon, and apostello.
"The baptism of repentance." No article in Gk. Should be
"a bapatism of repentance." The latter word is a genitive of
description, indicating what kind of a baptism is meant. It was a
baptism connected with the repentance of the individual. The word
is metanoia, made up of a preposition which when prefixed to a word
signifies a change, and the Greek word for "mind." It thus means "a
change of mind" as it appears in a person who repents of a purpose
he has formed or something he has done. Robertson quotes Broadus as
saying that this is the worst translation in the NT. "Repent" he
says, "means to be sorry again." John did not call on Israel to be
sorry, but to change their mental attitude and conduct. The word
for "sorry" in Gk. is metameleomai, and is used of Judas (Mt.
27:3). The word used here (metanoia) means "a change of mind and
thus of action consequent upon the realization that one has sinned
and that sin is wrong." Metamelomai is sorrow for sin because of
its evil consequences. This is remorse. Vincent, commenting on this
phrase, says, "A baptism the characteristic of which was
repentance, which involved an obligation to repent."
Translation: "There arose John, the baptizer, in the
uninhabited region, making a public proclamation of a baptism which
had to do with a change of mind relative to the previous life an
individual lived, this baptism being in view of the fact that sins
are put away." (Once again the author bends the Greek language to
make it fit his Baptist theology). A better ending for this
translation is, 'There arose John, the baptizer, in the uninhabited
region, making a public proclamation of a baptism which had to do
with a change of mind relative to the previous life and individual
lived, this baptism being into the realm of the forgiveness of
sins.'
McGarvey264,5 - "baptism of repentance."--The exact meaning of this
expression is to be ascertained by considering the relation between
John's baptism and repentance. That relation is indicated by the
fact that men were required to repent as a condition of being
baptized. (Mt. 3:8-9). Repentance was the one antecedent condition
of baptism; for although none were baptized who were not believers
in the true God, this was because John preached only to Jews who
were believers before his preaching began. As regards faith in
Christ, this was enjoined as a duty which was to follow baptism and
to be performed when the Christ should make his appearance. (Acts
19:4). John's baptism was called "the baptism of repentance," then,
because it was necessary for a man to repent in order that he might
be baptized, and because this was the only condition enjoined. If
the baptism of the new covenant were designated after the same
manner, it would be called the baptism of faith, because faith,
though not the only prerequisite, is the chief of all.
"for the remission of sins."--Remission of sins is but
another expression for pardon, or the forgiveness of sins. "For the
remission of sins" declares the object for which the baptism of
repentance was administered; or, in other words, it points out the
blessing to be enjoyed by the penitent Jew when baptized. This
would need no argument to an unprejudiced mind; for it is the
natural and obvious meaning of the words. But those who have been
taught to deny the divinely established connection between baptism
and remission of sins, have resorted to various ingenious devices
in order to put a different meaning on passages like this. One of
these devices is the assumption that the preposition "for" connects
"remission," not with the term baptism, but with the term
repentance; and that repentance, not baptism, is declared to be for
the remission of sins. According to this assumption, "repentance
for the remission of sins" is an adjunct of "baptism," showing what
baptism John preached--a baptism preceded by repentance for
remission of sins. But this is a forced construction of the
sentence, and it bears all the marks of having been invented for a
purpose. By the natural and grammatical construction, "of
repentance" must be regarded as an adjunct of "baptism," showing
that it is a baptism of repentance, while "for the remission of
sins" declares the object of this baptism. We have examples of the
same construction, in both English and Greek, in the following
places: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness." (Rom.
10:4). "He" (the civil ruler) "is the minister of God to thee for
good." (Rom. 13:4.) In each of these examples the preposition "for"
connects its object with the leading substantive of the sentence,
while the subordinate substantaive with its preposition "of"
constitues an adjunct of the principal subject. So, in the instance
before us, "for" connects "baptism" with "remission of sins," while
"of repentance" is an adjunct of "baptism."
Another device has been to assign to "for," the meaning,
"on account of;" thus making the passage mean that John preached
the baptism of repentance on account of the remission of sins which
had already taken place. But this is assigning to the Greek
preposition (eis) rendered "for" a meaning which it never bears,
and it makes John announce as a reason for baptism that which could
not be a reason for it. How could the fact that a man's sins had
already been forgiven be a reason why he should be baptized? Even
if forgiveness had preceded baptism, baptism would still have an
object of its own, as it has in the system even of those who accept
this interpretation, and for this object it would be administered.
The course which candor and fair dealing with the word of God
requires, is to accept the meaning which the inspired writer has
left on the very surface of the passage, and not to seek for forced
interpretations in order to save a theory which must be false
unless it can find betgter support than this. It follows, that in
addition to the animal sacrifices for sin which the law still
required, John commanded the Jews to be also baptized for the same
purpose, and thus his baptism served as a transition from the
Jewish law of pardon to that which prevails under the reign of
Christ.
Barclay4,5 - John came announcing a baptism of repentance. The Jew was
familiar with ritual washings. Leviticus 11-15 details them. "The
Jew," said Tertullian, "washes himself every day because every day
he is defiled." Symbolic washing and purifying was woven into the
very fabric of Jewish ritual. Now a Gentile was necessarily unclean
for the Gentile had never kept any part of the Jewish law. There-
fore, when a Gentile became a proselyte, that is a convert to the
Jewish faith, he had to undergo three things. First, he had to
undergo circumsion, for that was the mark of the covenant people;
second, sacrifice had to be made for him, for a Gentile, as such,
stood in need of atonement and only blood could atone for sin;
third, he had to undergo baptism, which symbolized his cleansing
from all the pollution of his past life. Very naturally therefore
the baptism was not a mere sprinkling with water, but a bath in
which his whole body was bathed. the Jew knew baptism; but the
amazing thing about John's baptism was that he, a Jew, was asking
Jews to submit to that which only a Gentile was supposed to submit
to. John had made the tremendous discovery that to be a Jew in the
racial sense was not to be a member of God's chosen people; a Jew
might be in exactly the same position as a Gentile; not the Jewish
life, but the cleansed life belonged to God. 
The baptism was accompanied by confession. In any act of
return to God confession must be made to three different people.
(i) A man must make confession to himself. It is a part
of human nature that we shut our eyes to what we do not wish to
see, and above all for that very reason we shut our eyes to our own
sins. Someone tells of a man's first step to grace. As he was
shaving one morning he looked at his own face in the mirror, and
suddenly said, "You dirty, little rat!" And from that day he began
to be a changed man. No doubt when the prodigal son left home he
thought himself a fine and adventurous character. Before he took
his first step home he had to take a good look at himself and say,
"I will get up and go home and say that I am an utter rotter." (Lk.
15:17-18.) There is no one in all the world harder to face than
ourselves; and the first step to repentance and to a right
relationship to God is to admit our own sin to ourselves.
(ii) A man must make confession to those whom he has
wronged. It will not be much use saying to God that we are sorry
until we say we are sorry to those whom we have hurt and injured
and grieved. The human barriers have to be removed before the
divine barriers can be removed. In the revival in the East African
Church, confession of sin has been a characteristic emergence. A
husband and wife were members of one group. One of them came and at
confession confessed that there was a quarrel at home. The native
minister at once said, "You should not have come and confessed that
quarrel at all just now; you should have made it up and then come
and confessed it." It can often be the case that confession to God
is easier than confession to men. But there can be no forgiveness
without humiliation. 
(iii) A man must make confession to God. The end of pride
is the beginning of forgiveness. It is when a man says, "I have
sinned," that God gets the chance to say, "I forgive." It is not
the man who desires to meet God on equal terms who will discover
forgiveness, but the man who kneels in humble contrition and
whispers through his shame, "God be merciful to me a sinner."


Mark 1:5
and there were going out unto him all' the Judaea' country, , and
all' they of Jerusalem, and were being immersed by him, in the
Jordan' river, openly confessing their sins;

26trans - And there kept going out to him (continuously) all the country
of Judea--Amp; and they flocked to him from the whole Judaean
country-side--NEB; and all they of Jerusalem-- ASV; and all the
people of Jerusalem--RSV; and they were baptized by him--RSV;
...immersed...--ABUV; ...being baptized...--NASB; in the river
Jordan--ASV; acknowledging...--Gspd; making open confession
of...--Wey; when they confessed...--Nor; saying that they were
sinners-- Bas;
Somers - "went out" = Imperfect Deponent Indicative. The verb displays
the continuous stream of people that were going out to see John.
"All" is a hyperbole here because we know that the self-righteous
Pharisees were not submitting to this baptism. "were baptized" =
Imperfect Passive Indicative. "by him" = hupo with the ablative
case which is the common Greek way of expressing agency. "in the
Jordan river" = en with the locative case that locates where the
baptizing was taking place. This is called the Locative of Place.
"confessing" = Present Middle nominative participle. Middle voice
indicates they were confessing for themselves their own sins. Many
folks want to confess the sins of others but are a little hesitant
to confess their own sins. 
Wuest19,20 - "There went out to him." The verb, ekporeuomai, is in the
imperfect tense which speaks of continuous action. What a picture
it draws here. There kept on constantly going out to John in a
steady stream, all the people of the surrounding inhabited places
in Judaea and from Jerusalem. The tense of the verb shows the
widespread character of the movement. "Unto" is pros, a preposition
not only speaking of direction and ultimate destination, but of a
contact of persons, face to face. It indicates that those who came
to John, came because of who he was and what he proclaimed. It was
not a blind indiscriminate movement of a mass of people, but the
deliberate act of each one, transacting real business with a God
against whom they had sinned. 
"Baptized of him in the river Jordan." The verb is also
imperfect. Answering to the continuous coming of the people, was
the continuous baptizing of John, one after another. "Baptized in
the river" is literally, "placed in the river." The preposition is
en (in), not eis (into), completing the picture, showing submersion
in the river.
"Confessing their sins." The word "confess" is a present
participle. The rule of Gk. grammar that applies here is that the
action of a present tense participle goes on at the same time as
that of the leading verb. The leading verb here is "baptized."
Thus, the act of baptism and that of confessing sin, went on at the
same time. But that means that the recipient of baptism had already
repented of his sins before he came to John for baptism. His
confession was the outward indication of that repentance. The
preposition prefixed to the participle (ek, out) shows that this
confession was an open one to those who were also waiting for
baptism, not a private one to John. The word "confess" is
homologeo, made up of lego "to speak," and homos, "the same," the
compound word meaning "to speak the same thing that another
speaks," thus, "to agree with someone else." Thus, confession of
sinis more than a mere acknowledgment of sin in the life. It is an
agreeing with God as to all the implications that enter into the
fact that one has sinned. It is looking at sin from God's point of
view, and acting accordingly. It means the putting away of that
sin. It means the determination to be done with that sin.
Translation: "And there kept on continuously proceeding
out to him in a steady stream all the Judaean region and all the
people of Jerusalem. And they were being baptized by him in the
Jordan River as they were confessing their sins.
McGarvey34 - "went out to him."--Notwithstanding the unfavorable
locality selected by John, he had no lack of an audience. The term
all, however, is used here according to a Hebrew idiom by which it
is put for the greater part. This appears from Matthew's subsequent
statement that the chidf priests and elders of the people did not
accept John's baptism, and from Luke's statement that the Pharisees
and lawyers, as a class, rejected it. (Mt. 21:23-25; Luke 7:30).
"confessing their sins."--We have seen (vs.2) that John's
chief theme was repentance, and here we learn that those baptized
by him confessed their sins. Repentance and confession of sins,
then, were the prerequisites to his baptism, and these imply faith
in what he preached. The confession must have been of a very
general character; for the brief duration of John's ministry, and
the vast numbers that he baptized forbid the supposition of a
detailed confession of all the sins of each individual.



Mark 1:6
and John was clothed with camel's-hair, and a leathern girdle
about his loins, and was eating locusts and wild honey;

26trans - John wore clothing made of camel-hair--Rieu; John was dressed
in a rough coat of camel's hair--NEB; and with a leathern
girdle...--Alf; with a leather belt about his waist--Ber; and he
fed on locusts and wild honey--NEB; and his food was...--Wey; and
he lived on grasshoppers...--Beck; and he ate locusts, and "honey
of the wood"--Mon;
Somers - John "was having been clothed" = a periphrastic pluperfect
which consists of the imperfect tense of "to be" and the perfect
participle. It intensifies continuity of the kind of clothes that
John was wearing. He did not put these on for show time but this
had been and was his regular poor persons clothes. We also have a
periphrastic imperfect to describe his eating habits which also
intensifes his habitual kind of diet.
Ear108 - Girdle. A more contemporary translation here for "a girdle of
a skin about his loins" (KJV) is "a leather belt around his waist"
(as in NIV). Incidentally, "camel's" hair in this verse comes right
out of the Gk., which has camelou, "of a camel."
Wuest20,1 - "Clothed with camel's hair." "Clothed" is a perfect
participle, indicating that this garb of John's was not a uniform
or affectation put on for the occasion, but his usual mode of
clothing himself. Robertson says that this was probably a necessity
with John, and not an affectation, although Elijah wore rough sack
cloth woven from the hair of camels (II Kings 1:8). He quotes
Plummer as holding that "John consciously took Elijah as a model."
"Hair" is plural in the Gk. text. John's garment was not made of
the skin of a camel, but was a rough cloth woven of camel's hairs.
"Wild honey." Vincent quotes Tristram in Land of Israel;
"The innumerable fissures and clefts of the limestone rocks, which
everywhere flank the valleys, afford in the recesses secure shelter
for any number of swarms of wild bees; and many of the Bedouin,
particularly about the wilderness of Judaea, obtain their
subsistence by bee- hunting, bringing into Jerusalem jars of that
wild honey on which John the Baptist fed in the wilderness." This,
together with dried locusts which were considered palatable, was
the chief source of John's food.
Translation: "And there was this John, clothed habitually
in a camel's hair garment, and with a leather belt about his loins,
and he customarily ate locusts and wild honey."
McGarvey34 - "his raiment."--John's dress, a coarse fabric woven from
camel's hair, with a raw hide girdle attached to it; and his food,
consisting of the Egyptian locust and wild honey, were so unusual
that the Pharisees said he had a demon (11:18); but nothing could
be more appropriate than that he whose mission it was to call men
to repentance should himself set an example of austere self-denial.
Barclay6,7 - (i) John was a man who lived his message. Not only his
words, but also his whole life was a protest. Three things about
him marked the reality of his protest against contemporary life.
(a) There was the place in which he stayed. He stayed in the
wilderness. Between the centre of Judaea and the Dead Sea there
lies one of the most terrible deserts in the world. It is a
limestone desert; it looks warped and twisted. It shimmers in the
haze of the heat; the limestone rock is hot and blistering and
sounds hollow to the feet as if there was some vast furnace
underneath. It moves out to the Dead Sea and then descends in
dreadful and unscalable precipices down to the level of the sea. In
the OT it is ometimes called Jeshimmon, which means The
Devastation. John was no city-dweller. He was a man from the desert
and from its solitudes and its desolations. Clearly he was a man
who had given himself a chance to hear the voice of God. (b) There
were the clothes he wore. He wore a garment woven of camel's hair
and a leather belt about his waist. So did Elijah (II Kings 1:8).
To look at the man was to be reminded, not of the fashionable
orators of the day, but of the ancient prophets who lived close to
the great simplicities and avoided the soft and effeminate luxuries
which kill the soul. (c) There was the food he ate. Locusts and
wild honey were his food. It so happens that both words are capable
of two interpretations. The locusts can be the animals for the law
allowed them to be eaten (Lev. 11:22- 23); but they can also be a
kind of bean or nut, the carob, which was the food of the poorest
of the poor. The honey can be the honey the wild bees made in some
hollow tree; or it can be a kind of sweet sap that distilled from
the bark of certain trees. It does not matter what the words
precisely mean. They mean that in any event John's diet was of the
simplest fare. So John emerged. People had to listen to a man like
that. It was said of Carlyle that "he preached the gospel of
silence in twenty volumes." There is many a man who comes with a
message which he himself denies. There has been many a man with a
very comfortable bank account who preached about not laying up
treasures upon earth; and many a man who extolled the blessings of
poverty from a very comfortable home. But in the case of John, the
man was the message, and because of that people listened. 



Mark 1:7
and he proclaimed, saying--
He that is mightier than I cometh after [me],
Of whom I am not worthy to stoop and unloose the strap of his
sandals:

26trans - And he was preaching, and saying--NASB; His proclamation
was--NEB; The burden of his preaching was--Phi; He kept preaching
the following message--Wms; Here is a sample of his
preaching:--Tay; There is coming after me one more powerful than
I--TCNT; There is one coming after me who is greater than I--Bas;
the strap of Whose sandals--Amp; I am not even fit to stoop down
and untie--NASB;
Somers - "proclaimed" = Imperfect Active Indicative. He proclaimed over
and over again. "saying" = Present Active nominative participle.
Both the verb and the participle going together to emphasize the
constant and continuous nature of John's preaching. "comes" =
Present Deponent Indicative. Once again we probably have a
Futuristic Present that denotes an event which has not yet
occurred, but which is regarded as so certain that in thought it
may be contemplated as already coming to pass. "I am not" = ouk,
the absolute definite, no changes "not." Of the superiority of
Jesus, John is absolutely sure. 
Ear109 - Shoes. The only meaning that A&G's Lexicon gives for hupodema
is "sandal." In those days people wore sandals, not the enclosed
shoes of today. "Thongs of whose sandals" is therefore a better
translation.
B376 - The infinitive lusai is used to limit the adjective hikanos, "the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose."
T67 - In the aorist expression ekerussen legon the reference may be to
some definite occasion and actual saying [not a summary of his
total ministry].
BD418(5) - The participle kupsas is used to express the notion of
manner, "even by stooping."
DM219 - b. The infinitive may modify an adjective with a regular
substantive function. " I am not worthy to loose." i. The
substantive force of the infinitive modifier may be seen by
substituting in its place a noun in the same case relation. So in
Jn. 1:12 we might read, "He gave them the right of a condition as
children of God"; while here may be changed to, "I am not worthy of
the most humble service." BW129 - "I am not worthy to lose the
strap of his sandals after I have stooped down.
BW137 - 9. The Circumstantial Participle. A participle may be used to
indicate an action which accompanies the action of the main verb.
The action indicated by the participle constitutes a rather loose
addition to that of the main verb. The participle indicates
something else that happened, an additional fact or thought, an
incidental fact. "He preached and said....
Wuest21,2 - "Preached," again kerusso, used of a king's forerunner who
as an imperial herald, proclaims the coming of his sovereign. John
followed this pattern in a grave, formal, and authoritative manner
of delivery which must be listened to and heeded.
"There cometh one mightier than I." The definite article
is used. There cometh "the One," not merely "one." It was a
distinctive, unique, outstanding Person, even the Jehovah of the OT
who was to come. 
"The latchet of whose shoes." "Latchet" is himas, the
thong of the sandal which held it together. "Shoes" is hupodema,
literally, "that which is bound under," namely, a sole which is
bound under the foot with thongs, thus, a sandal.
"I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose." This was the
menial task of a slave in an oriental household who took off the
guest's sandals and washed their feet as they entered the home.
John was anxious that men would not form a wrong impression of him
and his ministry. He took a place beneath that of an oriental
slave. This is the man who said of the King whom he was
proclaiming, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).
"Increase" is the translation of auxano "to become greater,"
"decrease," the translation of elattao "to be made less" in
dignity, authority, and popularity. "Must" is dei, "it is necessary
in the nature of the case." What John said in its fulness was, "It
is necessary in the nature of the case for that One to be
constantly growing greater, but for me to be constantly growing
inferior in dignity, authority, and popularity." The necessity in
the nature of the case was that John was only the herald, Jesus,
the King whom he announced. The former must constantly be fading
away into the distance, while the latter must increasingly be
coming into the foreground. 
Translation: "And he made proclamation, saying, There
comes the One who is mightier than I after me, the thong of whose
sandal I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose."
Barclay7,8 - (ii) His message was effective because he told people
what in their heart of hearts they knew, and he brought them what
in the depths of tyheir souls they were waiting for. (a) The Jews
had a saying that "if Israel would only keep the law of God
perfectly for one day the Kingdom of God would come." When John
summoned men to repentance he was confronting them with a choice
and a decision that they knew in their heart of hearts they ought
to make. Long ago Plato said that education did not consist in
telling people new things; it consisted in extracting from their
memories that which they already knew. No message is so effective
as that which speaks to a man's own conscience, and that message
becomes well-nigh irresistible when it is spoken by a man who
obviously has the right to speak. (b) The people of Israel were
well aware that for three hundred years the voice of prophecy had
been silent. They were waiting for some authentic word from God.
And in John they heard it. In every walk of life the expert is
recognizable. A famous violinist tells us that no sooner has
Toscanini mounted the rostrum that the orchestra feels the
authority of this man flowing over them. We recognize at once a
doctor who has real skill. We recognize at once a speaker who knows
his subject. John had come from God and to hear him was to know it.

(iii) His message was effective because he was completely
humble. His own verdict on himself was that he was not fit for the
duty of a slave. The sandals were composed simply of leather soles
fastened to the foot by straps which passed through the toes. The
roads were quite unsurfaced. In dry weather they were dust heaps;
in wet weather rivers of mud. To remove the sandals was the work
and office of a slave. John asked for nothing for himself but for
everything for the Christ whom he proclaimed. The man's obvious
self-forgottenness, his obvious yieldedness, his complete
self-effacement, his utter lostness in his message compelled people
to listen to him. 
(iv) Another way to put the same thing is to say that
John's message was effective because he pointed to something and
someone beyond himself. He told men that his baptism drenched them
in water; but one was coming who would drench them in the Holy
Spirit; and while water could cleanse a man's body, the Holy Spirit
could cleanse a man's life and self and heart. Dr. G.J.Jeffrey
often uses a favourite illustration. When we make a telephone call
and there is some delay, the operator will often say, "I'm trying
to connect you." When the connection has been effected the operator
fades out and leaves us in direct contact with the person to whom
we wish to speak. John's one aim was not to occupy the centre of
the stage himself, but to try to connect men with the one who was
greater and stronger than he; and men listened to him because he
pointed, not to himself, but to the one whom all men need. 


Mark 1:8
//I\\ have immersed you /with water\,--
//He\\ will immerse you /with the Holy Spirit\.

26trans - I immersed you in water--ABUV; but he will immerse you in the
Holy Spirit--ABUV; but he will baptize you with the Holy
Spirit--RSV;
Somers - "I" (ego) is emphatic. "baptized" = Aorist Active Indicative.
"water" is in the locative case. The translation should be "in"
water and not "with" water for it makes not sense to immerse "with"
water but the meaning of the verb makes a whole lot of sense to
immerse "in" water. The same is true of the Holy Spirit which is
also in the locative case. They would be immersed or placed within
the realm of the Holy Spirit. They would live for Christ in a
spiritual plane. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
This indicated that his is a spiritual kingdom and we should expect
to be led by the Spirit, His spirit.
T41 - The pronoun autos apparently has some emphasis here (in contrast
to ego).
Cham151 - Conjunctions. Adversative. Not all of these imply antithesis.
The context will make clear how strong the contrast is, when there
is any. ,,, In ego ebaptisa humas hudati, autos de baptisei humas
Pneumati Hagio (here), 'I baptized you with water, but (de) he
shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit,' the de contrasts the
agents, the media and McGarvey36,7,8 - "with water."-- The Greek
preposition (en) here translated with primarily means in, and
should be so translated in all instances, except where the context
or the nature of the case forbids. It must be admitted by all that
there is nothing in this context to exclude its ordinary meaning,
unless it be the use of the same preposition with the terms Holy
Spirit and fire. But the apostles were certainly baptized in the
Holy Spirit; and it is equally certain that the wicked will be
baptized in fire. The immediate context, then, instead of
forbidding the ordinary sense of the preposition, requires it. The
remoter context has the same force, for it had just been said that
the people were baptized by John in the Jordan; and there it is
impossible to render the preposition by with. Baptized "with the
Jordan" would be absurd.
"unto repentance."--The rendering, "I baptize you unto
repentance," implies that the baptism brought them to repentance.
But such is not the fact in the case, for John required repentance
as a prerequisite to baptism, and it is rather true that repentance
brought them to baptism. If we adopt the rendering, "into
repentance," which is more literal, we are involved in a worse
difficulty; for, if baptism did not bring the baptized unto
repentance, it certainly did not bring them into it. Again, if to
avoid these two difficulties we suppose the term repentance to be
used by metonymy for the state of one who has repented, we
encounter another difficulty not less serious; for the state of one
who has repented is entered, not by being baptized, but by
repenting. Finally, to assume, as some have done, that the
preposition has the sense of because of, is to seek escape from a
difficulty by attaching to a word a meaning which it never bears.
The preposition (eis) is never used to express the idea that one
thing is done because of another having been done. Neither, indeed,
would it be true that John baptized persons because of their
repentance; for, while it is true that repentance did precede the
baptism, it was not because of this that they were baptized; but
baptism had its own specific object, and because of this object it
was administered. The phrase under consideration has another
meaning whichm, though somewhat obscure as regards its connection
with the facts, is very naturally expressed by the words
themselves. The preposition is often expressive of purpose, and the
phrase may be properly rendered "in order to repentance." The
baptism was not in order to the repentance of the party baptized.
To so understand it would be to encounter the difficulty first
mentioned above. But a baptism which required repentance as a
prerequisite would have a tendency to cause those yet unbaptized to
repent, in order that they might receive the baptism and enjoy its
blessings. Prizes in schools are given in order to good behavior
and good recitations, although the good recitations and the good
behavior must precede the reception of the prizes. Promotions in
the army are in order to the encouragement of obedience and valor,
although these qualities of the good soldier must appear before
promotion can take place. in the same way was John's baptism in
order to repentance. The inestimable blessing of remission of sins
being attached to baptism (see Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), the desire to
obtain this blessing would prompt those yet unbaptized to repent,
so that they might be baptized. The words declare simply that the
general purpose of John's baptism was to bring the people to
repentance.
"with the Holy Spirit."--In the Holy Spirit. ... The
prediction here made that the Coming One would baptize in the Holy
Spirit, began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. (Comp. Acts
1:5; 2:4). But John speaks as if the baptism in the Holy Spirit was
to be as general under Christ as baptism in water was under his own
ministry. Some have inferred from this that all of the subjects of
Christ's kingdom were to be baptized in the Holy Spirit; and
another reason for the same conclusion is the fact that the baptism
in the Holy Spirit and that in fire seem to include all men; the
latter, all the wicked; the former all the righteous. But a
prediction is best understood in the light of its fulfillment; and
it is a fact that the apostles on Pentecost, and the household of
Cornelius, are the only persons said in the NT to have received
this baptism. (See Acts 1:5; 2:4; 11:15-16.) true, others, by
imposition of apostolic hands, received miraculous gifts of the
Spirit, and we would be justifiable in regarding these as instances
of baptism in the Spirit if they were precisely like the two so
called. But between these two and all others there is at least this
remarkable difference, that in these two the Spirit came directly
from Christ without human intervention, while in all others it was
imparted through human hands. While the baptism in the Spirit,
then, was actually confined to these two groups of persons, the
benefits resulting from it extended to all. The benefit of this
baptism in the house of Cornelius was the admission of all Gentile
converts into the church on an equality with the Jews; and the
benefit of that on Pentecost was to extend the blessed fruits of
plenary inspiration to all disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. These
considerations are sufficient to account for the general terms of
John's prediction.
Some have supposed that the baptism in the Spirit is not
confined to those who received miraculous gifts, but is enjoyed by
all who receive the Holy Spirit at all. This hypothesis, which I am
not prepare to adopt, would very satisfactorily explain John's
language.
"with fire."--A few eminent commentators refer the
expression in fire to the cloven tongues which sat upon the
apostles when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Alfor affirms,
"This was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost;" and, in
opposition to the more usual interpretation which refers it to the
final punishment of the wicked, he says: "To separate 'the Holy
Spirit' as referring to one set of persons and 'fire' as belonging
to another, when both are united in 'you', is in the last degree
harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole." As to the
literal fulfillment on Pentecost, the learned author seems to have
forgotten that it was not literal fire which sat on the apostles,
but "cloven tongues like as of fire" (Acts 2:2); and that, even if
these tongues had been actual fire, their sitting on the heads of
the apostles could not have constituted a baptism of the apostles
in fire. As regards the separation of the persons addressed into
two parties, we see no difficulty, for such a division is clearly
indicated in the context. In the preceding verse john uses the
fruitful trees for good men and the unfruitful for bad men; and in
the following verse he uses the wheat and the chaff in the same
way. It is no at all harsh, then, to understand him as keeping up
the distinction in the intermediate verse, and as using the term
you to comprehend both classes. The term you, indeed, must be
understood indefinitely, because the parties he was addressing had
not been baptized, and he could not say to them in the strict sense
of the pronoun, "I baptize you." The term is used indefinitely for
the people at large. Finally, in both of the connected sentences,
the term fire is connected with the fate of the wicked, and used as
the symbol of punishment. The unfruitful trees are to be burned
with fire, and the chaff is to be burned with "unquenchable fire;"
it is, then, "in the last degree harsh" to understand it
differently in this sentence. It is clearly the wicked who are to
be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be
realized when they are cast into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:15.)


Mark 1:9
And it came to pass, in those' days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of
Galilee, and was immersed into the Jordan by John;

26trans - It was in those days--Gspd; It happened at that time-- NEB;
...in Galilee--NEB; that Jesus arrived from the Galilean village of
Nazareth--Phi; ...by John in the Jordan--RSV; and was
immersed...--ABUV; 
Somers - It "came to pass" = Aorist Deponent Indicative. In "those" days
= the days when John was preaching and baptizing. "was baptized" =
Aorist Passive Indicative. Jesus always leads the way. We should
do what he leads us to do. Have you been baptized (immersed) as
Christ was? "by John" = hupo with the ablative case (agency). 
M68 - The preposition eis appears to be used for en in a local sense
(cf. BD205), perhaps with the meaning "He came to the Jordan and
was baptized in it."
T166f. - The anarthrous Iesous is to be taken closely with the phrase
which follows, "Gesus of Nazareth in Galilee." If it meant "Jesus
came from Nazareth in Galilee," it would have to be ho Iesous to
accord Mark's practice.
McGarvey266 - "came from Nazareth."--That Jesus "came from Nazareth
of Galilee," to be baptized by John, shows that he had continues to
make his home at Nazareth until the time of his baptism.
"in Jordan" -- The preposition here rendered "in" (eis)
means into, and it represents the passage of the person of Jesus
into the water as the act of baptism took place. "Baptized in the
Jordan" would not be ambibuous or obscure; but "baptized into the
Jordan" is more expressive, and is the correct rendering.



Mark 1:10
And </straightway\ as he was coming up out of the water> he saw the
heavens rending asunder, and /the Spirit, as a dove\ descending
unto him;

26trans - And just as he was coming up...--Gspd; At the moment when he
came up...--NEB; All at once, as he came up...--Phi; he saw the
heavens rent asunder--ASV; he saw...opening-- NASB; he saw the sky
parting asunder--Wey; and the Spirit, dovelike--Ber; ...towards
him--Rieu; coming down to enter into him--Gspd;
Somers - "going up" = Present Active nominative participle. This has the
sense of a Historical Present when a past event is viewed with the
vividness of a present occurence. "going up" with the preposition
ek which has the idea of going from the inside to the outside
leaves no doubt that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan and did not
go into the Jordan to have a few drops of water or a cup of water
poured on his head. "he saw" = Aorist Active Indicative. "being
rent" = Present Passive accusative participle. "coming down" =
Present Active accusative participle. "on him" has the preposition
eis and makes sense when translated "into" him. The Holy Spirit
enters into Chirst to let John know this is the MAN. 
Ear109 - Opened. We are told that as Jesus was coming up out of the
water, He saw the heavens "opened" (KJV). Matthew (3:16) and Luke
(3:21) both have the verb anoigo, which means simply "open." But
Mark has a much stronger word, schizo. It means "split, divide,
separate, tear apart, tear off" (AG), from which comes
"schizophrenic," split personality.
Incidentally, this highlights Mark's frequent use of
stronger or more dramatic terms than we find in the parallel
passages in Matthew and Luke. The Early Church was unanimous in
saying that Mark's Gospel gives us the preaching of Peter. It seems
clear that these strong expressions were used by Peter in his
preaching, reflecting his vigorous personality. Mark, his "son" in
the ministry (I Peter 5:13), caught this and incorporated it in his
Gospel.
R577 - The assertion is made by the preposition ek that Jesus had been
in the water.
DM101 - Mt. 3:16 ..."he went up from the water." But Mark is more
descriptive and adds further details by using a present participle
and ek, "out of": here, anabainon ek tou hudatos, "going up out of
the water."
T25 - Generally the singular ouranos is used for the material sense of
"sky" (but not in vs.10f.).
DM103 - Eis. Root meaning: "within, in." ... In Composition: "into,
in"... Resultant meaning (accusative case only used) "into, unto,
to, for." Remote meanings: (2) here katabainon eis auton, "coming
down upon him." (It would make just as much sense to translate it
"coming down into him." For the spirit did enter into him.) 
Wuest23 - "Was baptized of John in Jordan. "In" is eis, the meaning of
which is "into." It is a preposition of motion. "Baptized" is
literally "placed." Clearly, immersion is in view here. In the next
verse ek (out) is used, literally, "out from within." Jesus was
baptized into the river and then came up out of the water. Messiah,
though He had no sins to confess, nevertheless took His place with
the righteous of Israel, submitting to the baptism of John. Had He
not done so, He would have been misunderstood. No expanded
translation needed. Authorized Version clear enough.
Wuest23 - "Heavens opened." "Opened" is schizo, "to cleave asunder, to
divide by rending." "He saw the heavens being rent asunder." What
a close connection there was between the Father and the Son,
between heaven and earth, during the earthly life of our Lord.
"The Spirit like a dove descending upon Him." "Upon" is
eis, literally "into." Epi (upon) is not used here. This was the
act of the Holy Spirit taking up His residence in the Messiah. This
was the anointing with the Spirit for His three-fold ministry of
Prophet, Priest, and King, the dynamic equipment which would enable
the Messiah to discharge the duties connected with these offices
(Luke 4:16-19). For a discussion of the anointing with the Spirit,
based upon the papyri usage of the particular Greek word used in
connection with this subject, see the author's book Untranslatable
Riches.
McGarvey266 - "out of the water." -- The Greek text from which our
version was made has here the Greek preposition (apo), rendered
"out of;" but all of the more recent critics unite in regarding ek
as the true reading. So depose Lachmann, Meyer, Tischendorf,
Alford, Green, Tregelles. This is the reading of the Sinaitic, the
Vatican, and many other less authoritative manuscripts, and the
question is settled beyond all reasonable doubt. This question
being settled, the question as to the immersion of Jesus is also
settled: for if he came up out of the water, as ek necessarily
implies, he had gone down into it; and if he went down into the
water to be baptized, there is no room for an honest doubt that he
was immersed.
"the Spirit like a dove" -- The statement that he saw the
Spirit descending, which is also the language of Mark (1:10), has
been taken by some as implying that the Spirit was invisible to the
multitude. But we know from John's narrative that it was also seen
by John the Baptist (John 1:33-34); and if it was visible to him
and to Jesus, and if it descended, as Luke affirms, in a bodily
shape like a dove (Luke 3:22), ti would have required a miracle to
hide it from the multitude. Moreover, the object of the Spirit's
visible appearance was to point Jesus out, not to himself, but to
others; and to point him out as the person concerning whom the
voice from heaven was uttered. No doubt, then, the Spirit was
visible and the voice audible to all who were present. 


Mark 1:11
and a voice [came] out of the heavens--
/Thou\ art my Son, the Beloved,--
/In thee\ I delight.

26trans - and a voice came out of the heavens--ASV; And a voice spoke
from heaven--NEB; and a voice came from the sky, saying--Wey; Thou
art my Son, my Beloved--NEB; You are My Son, whom I love--Beck; You
are my dearly-loved Son--Bas; in thee I am...--ASV; on thee my
favour rests--NEB; You are my Chosen!--Gspd; in Thee I am
delighted--Ber;
Somers - "there was" = Aorist Deponent Indicative. "I am well pleased"
= Aorist Active Indicative. Here we have an aorist tense where one
might have expected a present tense to express the continuous
nature of God's being pleased with the Son. But this becomes clear
when one discovers that there is a use of the aorist called the
dramatic aorist. It states a present reality with the certitude of
a past event. It is a device for emphasis.
R532 - The prepositional phrase en soi is used to express a causal
idea.
B55 - Eudokesa appears to be an ingressive aorist, "joy comes at the
thought of you" (cf. T72; it probably means "on thee I have set the
seal of my approval": literally "I set," at a time which is not
defined--MT134; cf. the discussion on II Peter 1:17). B55 - The
aorist verb eudokesa may be explained in a variety of ways: 1) as
an historical aorist having reference to a specific event as its
basis, "I was well pleased with thee" (e.g., for receiving
baptism); 2) as a comprehensive historical aorist covering the
period of Christ's preincarnate existence; 3) as a comprehensive
historical aorist having the force of an English perfect, and
referring to the period of Christ's earthly existence up to the
time of speaking; and 4) as an inceptive aorist referring to some
indefinite, imagined point of past time at which God is represented
as becoming well pleased with Jesus--most probable (it is a
timeless aorist and may also be gnomic [something well
known]--R842).
Wuest23,4 - "From heaven." The preposition is ek, not apo. The latter
means "from the edge of," the former, "out from withing." In the
previous verse we had, "He saw the heaven being rent asunder." Here
we have "There came a voice out from within the heavens." Heaven is
a place. It has boundaries. It can be opened and closed.
"Thou art my beloved Son." The Gk. has the pronoun of the
second person su. Literally, "As for you in contradistinction to
all others." Messiah is the unique Son of God. Believers are sons
of God, but they sustain a different relationship to the Father
than the Son does. Messiah claimed to be the Son of God in a unique
way, for He said that God was His own private, personal, unique
Father (His, not the personal pronoun of the third person (autos),
but idios, the latter word wpeaking of what is one's own private,
unique, absolute possession (John 5:18). The order of the Greek
words are, "as for you, you are my Son, the beloved One." Here,
equal emphasis is laid upon the fact that Messiah is the Son of
God, and that He is the beloved Son. The particular word for "love"
here is agape which in the classics spoke of a love called out of
one's heart by the preciousness of the object loved. The Son of God
is infinitely precious to God the Father. This love is called out
of the Father's heart by the preciousness of the Son.
"In whom I am well pleased." The best manuscripts have
the personal pronoun of the second person, not the relative pronoun
which appears in some. It is, "In you I am well pleased." The Gk.
language had no "thee" and "thou" form of address. The writer
prefers to use the "thee" and "thou" when addressing God in prayer,
since this form of address shows more reverence for Deity. But for
the sake of accurate translation and a faithful reproduction of the
Greek text, the word "you" is used, however, without any thought of
irreverence. "Well pleased" is eudokeo. The word is made up of
dokeo "to be of opinion, to think, suppose," and eu which when
prefixed to a word adds the idea of "good." The noun form of this
compound word means "delight, pleasure, satisfaction," the verb, as
it is used in the NT, "to be well pleased with, to take pleasure
in." The entire statement is therefore, "As for you in
contradistinction to all others, you are my Son, the beloved One;
in you I am well pleased." This verb is in the aorist tense, which
in the indicative mode speaks of a past action. The particular
classification here is that of the constative aorist, which
contemplates the action in its entirety, gathering it into a single
whole, presenting a panoramic picture. This tense was used here
rather than the present, because the aorist reaches back into the
past, and in its constative classification regards the Father as
always having been pleased with the Son and as always being pleased
with him. It is a delight that never had a beginning, and will
never have an end.
Translation: "And a voice came out from within heaven, As
for you, you are my Son, the beloved One; in you I am well pleased.
McGarvey40 - "a voice from heaven" -- The voice from heaven gave
expression to two distinct thoughts: First, That Jesus was God's
beloved Son: Second, That in him--that is, in him as entering now
on the work of human redemption -- God was well pleased. It gave a
pledge that the mediatorial work of Christ would be accepted on the
part of God.
Mark's report of it, as Luke's also, differs from
Matthew's in representing the words as addressed to Jesus in the
second person. It is most likely that Mark and Luke give us the
words in their exact form, while Matthew adopts the less definite
form of the third person, because his mind was chiefly directed to
the effect of the speech on the by- standers, or because he is
given to the less definite forms of speech.
Barclay9,10,11 - To any thinking person the baptism of Jesus presents a
problem. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. It was meant
for those who were sorry for their sins and who wished to express
their determination to leave them and to have done with them. What
had such a baptism to do with Jesus? Was He not the sinless one,
and was not such a baptism quite unnecessary and quite irrelevant
as far as He was concerned? For Jesus the baptism was four things.
(i) It was for Him the moment of decision. For thirty 
years He had stayed in Nazareth. Faithfully He had done the day's
work and had discharged His duties to His home. For long He must
have been conscious that the time for Him to go out had to come. He
must have waited for a sign. For Him the emergence of John was that
sign. This, He saw, was the mo- ment when He had to launch out upon
His task. In every life there come moments of decision which can be
accepted or rejected. To accept them is to succeed in life; to
reject them, or to shirk them, is to fail. As Lowell had it:
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide
In the strife of Truth with falsehood, for the good or
evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah, offering each the
bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by for ever 'twixt that darkness and
that light."
To every man there comes the unreturning decisive moment.
As Shakespeare saw it:
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their lives
Is bound in shallows and miseries."
The wasted life, the frustrated life, the discontented
life, and often the tragic life is the undecided life. As John
Oxenham saw it:
"To every man there openeth
A way and ways and a way;
The high soul treads the high way,
And the low soul gropes the low,
And in between on the misty flats,
The rest drift to and fro."
The drifting life can never be the happy life. Jesus knew 
when John emerged that the moment of decision had come. Nazareth
was peaceful and home was sweet, but He answered the summons and
the challenge of God. 
(ii) It was for Him the moment of identification. It is
quite true that Jesus did not need to repent from sin; but here was
a movement of the people back to God; and with that Godward
movement He was determined to identify Himself. A man might himself
possess ease and comfort and wealth, but, if he saw the emergence
of a movement which was going to bring better things to the
downtrodden and the poor and the ill-housed and the over-worked and
the under-paid, that is no reason why he should fail to identify
himself with it. The really great identification is when a man
identifies himself with a movement, not for his own sake, but for
the sake of others. In John Bunyan's dream, Christian came in his
journeying with Interpreter to the Palace which was heavily guarded
and into which it was a battle to seek an entry. At the door there
sat the man with the inkhorn taking the names of those who would
dare the assault. All were hanging back, then Christian saw "a man
of a very stout countenance come up to the man that sat there to
write saying, 'Set down my name, sir'." When great things are afoot
the Christian is bound to say, "Set down my name, sir." for that is
what Jesus did when He came to be baptized. 
(iii) It was for Him the moment of approval. No man
lightly leaves his home and sets out on an unknown way. He must be
very sure that he is right. Jesus had decided on His course of
action, and now He was looking for the seal of the approval of God.
In the time of Jesus the Jews spoke of what they called the Bath
Qol, which means, the daughter of a voice. By this time they
believed in a series of heavens, in the highest of which God sat in
the light to which no man could approach. There were rare times
when the heavens opened and God spoke; but, to them, God was so
distant that it was only the far away echo of the voice of God that
they heard. To Jesus the voice of God came completely directly. As
Mark tells the story, this was a personal experience which Jesus
had, and not in any sense a demonstration to the crowd. The voice
did not say, "This is my beloved Son," as Matthew has it (Matt.
3:17). It said, "You are my beloved Son," speaking direct to Jesus.
At the baptism Jesus submitted His decision to God and that
decision was unmistakable approved.
(iv) It was for Him the moment of equipment. At that time
the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. Now there is a certain
symbolism here. The Spirit descended as a dove might descend. The
simile is not chosen by accident. The dove is the symbol of
gentleness. Both Matthew and Luke tell us of the preaching of John.
(Matt. 3:7-12; Luke 3:7-13). John's message was a message of the
axe laid to the root of the tree, of the terrible sifting, of the
consuming fire. It was a message of doom and not a message of good
news. But from the very beginning the picture of the Spirit likened
to a dove is a picture of gentleness. He will conquer, but the
conquest will be the conquest of love.