Ending of Mark

I was under the assumption that Mark wrote the Book of Mark in Rome, for the Romans who practiced many different types of customs and idolatry. I thought in that period of Marks life people were questioning the fact was Jesus really the Savior. Would Jesus really be the one who would save the Jew. The Jew and the Roman thinking that Jesus was to rule as a radiant King on earth. And this was the reason for removing Jesus from existence on earth.

Mark wrote down Peters account of the gospel. The people were not satisfied with hearing Peters sermons once, and so it was written down for the Roman.

This is not the first time these chapters have been questioned. They were not in the most reliable Greek manuscripts. Scholars have debated for many years whether they are or not written by Mark. This is not a new thing.

In the last chapters of Mark in question, Jesus is demonstrated as a Servant. And He is teaching Sevanthood to the Apostles. Isn't that what He teaches us throughout the whole bible?

I think what this all boils down to is Mark is showing the Roman, just as Matthew shows the Israelite. Each is showing in a way of life style each is accustomed to, how to act as a follower of Jesus Christ. They are teaching them how to trust Jesus in all things, that they might go out and spread the gospel.

So even if those last chapters were not written by Mark, they are still showing that Jesus came as a Servant, and all the wonderful ministries and miracles experienced by a believer yesterday and today. Nothing here is saying go out and be a snake charmer, or get bit by a snake, but what these chapters are saying is, to live your life in trust of the Lord, that all things are possible.

Am I close Dr. Bob?

Sherrie

 

Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
Acts 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
Acts 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
Acts 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

how do you think about this verse?

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

Timothy, MVN seems to have disappeared after being asked this question so I will pose it to you. If the KJV is correct those who believe in Christ "shall" do the things listed in Mark 16:17-18.

Have you? Do you think anyone who has died without doing these things is in hell? Do you expect to do these things as a confirmation of your salvation?... or is the KJV incorrect in this passage?

The answer to at least one of these questions must be "yes".

 

scott, the same construct is used in John 14:12. have any of us raised the dead? either we're all not saved, or those passages cannot be taken literally. but it's not fair to criticize mark when the same problem, magnified, exists in john.

my take: all these special signs faded away after the church was established, just like tounges etc.

but that still leaves a problem - even when tounges were operative, were ALL believers performing miracles like unto, nay, greater than jesus?

 

Could it be that the "believing" Jesus was talking about im Mark 16 is connected to the things he mentioned in the end of Mark 16? When the Bible talks about "faith" or "believing" it doesn´t necessarily mean "faith in Christ as our redeemer" or "believing that Jesus died for our sins". It can be faith in God´s healing power for example. In Mark 6 Jesus wasn´t able to heal people because of a lack of faith.
There are so many testimonies from missionaries who experienced divine healing from snake bites etc. If Paul had picked up a snake just for fun he would have died. But it was an attack of the devil to stop this man of God. So God healed that man who believed that he could do all things through Christ.

Could that be a possible answer?

 

Mark 16
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

“with signs following” is “with THE signs following” in the koine of the TR.

That is, the signs which Jesus iterated in verses 17 and 18.
We should need no further proof than verse 20 that these “signs” were fulfilled.

Also, in Hebrews 2 we have

Hebrews 2
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The signs were given to the first generation apostolic believers (to Hebrews who require a “sign”). These sign(s) “were confirmed” and IMO passed out of use.

Personally, I look to the Traditional Text (which we had for the 3rd through 19th centuries of the Church) as the virtual inerrant text.

A summary of Dean Burgon’s (TR champion) dealings with Mark 16:9-20 are included in Appendix 7 (pages 298-307) in His book The Traditional Text.

I personally do not take offence at brethren, (will not separate from them, will not cast doubt upon their salvation , and/or their love and loyalty for God and His Word) who wish to remove these verses from the Traditional Text.

But I do disagree with them that it is extra-canonical.


HankD

 

I agree.

Sherrie

 

You're dead-something, anyway. And come to think of it, that condition is serious.

But now, let's get to the gist. Do you speak in other languages, heal by laying on of your hands, drink poison and remain unharmed, and pick up serpents?-- do you show the "signs of them that believe," or do you repudiate these verses you claim must be valid?

 

You cannot judge whether or not a verse belongs to the Word of God by experience. Jesus tells us to "go into all the world"... are you doing that?
I mean... all the world?

 

Why dont you quit playing games and " RIGHTLY DIVIDE" your Bible(KJB)? If you would you would see that those verses are for a different dispensation;not for the blood bought child of God in the Church age.

As far as myself doing those things,only if you go first!! Bottoms up!!!

 

I don't drink poison, pick up snakes, et al, not the least of reasons is because there is quite a reasonable doubt as to whether those verses belong in the canon of scripture. According to you, they do belong there. So then you have to create an excuse for repudiating them in your own life. I neither have nor require any excuse.

"Rightly divide the word of truth" = insist that an extended passage belongs in the word of truth, then refuse to obey it because of "rightly dividing" it out as no longer having validity.

 

Well may I add that when my little girl (now 28) gave her little brother some Pinesol to drink that I claimed those verses while in the emergency room! Jon was sent home but the emergency room doctor saw me in public a few weeks later and asked what had happened. The X-rays came back that Jon had aspirated the fumes and had the beginning of gaseous pneumonia which is VERY serious. I told him Jon was never sick! I didn't know what he was talking about!! Jon is now 26.

So, say what you may, I had faith that God would protect my child from that poison... and He did.

Diane

 

scott, the same construct is used in John 14:12. have any of us raised the dead? either we're all not saved, or those passages cannot be taken literally. but it's not fair to criticize mark when the same problem, magnified, exists in john.</font>[/QUOTE] I disagree. Jesus did not specify deeds in John. My belief is that he was referring to types of works and not a checklist of works. John is also referring not to the power of the works but the extent. His ministry was local but His church has done mighty works throughout the world. But in Mark 16, there are specific things mentioned. A check list is given.

The short answer to your response is that these are not the same construct. In fact, two different words are used both in Greek and in English. John has ergon or works, Mark has semeion or signs. They are not necessarily synonomous and it is my opinion that they are not.

For clarification, I believe a longer ending such as given by the KJV is probably correct. But I do not believe the exact wording of the KJV follows the originals exactly.

Agreed. And this is probably not contradicted by the original ending of Mark.

"Works", not "miracles" are mentioned in John. Greater in power? NO. Greater in extent? YES. By the time of John's death, the Gospel had reached southern Asia, central Africa, and the expanse of the Roman Empire.

 

It's always been my opinion, and it's only a guess, that Jesus' statements in Mark 16:17-18 describe the signs and wonders characteristic of the apostolic age. They are not necessarily normative for Christians in later eras. If taken that way, there is really nothing outrageous or contradictory about the comments. Certainly, no one here argues that we should be handling snakes as a test of faith. As for the genuineness of 16:9-20, I do believe the passage belongs in the Bible, whether Mark wrote it or not, although there is nothing wrong with indicating doubts about it in a footnote. God desires us to be informed in our faith, not ignorant.

 

MV-neverist said:

If you would you would see that those verses are for a different dispensation;not for the blood bought child of God in the Church age.

And by pulling out the "dispensation" card, which effectively gives you license to ignore anything in the Bible that you do not want to obey, you have officially lost the argument. Have a good one!

 

I feel the same way DCK. That is why I showed the Hebrews passage that these "signs" were to confirm the message to the Hebrews.

Every where (at first) that the apostles went with the Gospel they normally went to the Jew first with confirming "signs".

In the Book of Hebrews :

Hebrews 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Once confirmed IMO these "signs" dwindled away until the perfect revelation had been achieved in the epistles of the Apostles.

IMO, this has not to do with "dispensationalism" but the plan of God for the spread of the Gospel to the Jew first and then the Greek.

Also, there are other Scriptures in Mark which no one practices:

Mark 9
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched....

45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched...

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

How many Christians do you know that have obeyed this command?

Should we remove these passages from the text as well?

Whether a Scripture is obeyed is not the only criteria of its authenticity. In fact, it is probably the least of tests.

HankD

 

Concerning dispensations and Mark 16...

Why did the "blood-bought child of God" Cornelius (originally a heathen) speak in other tongues? And what about that church in the Greek city of Corinth who spoke in other tongues? And what about:
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. 2. Corinthians (not Hebrews!) 12:12

And what about the pagan people who saw that Paul did not die by the bite of the snake (what a sign!)

And... Dr. Bob´s question was about historical manuscript evidence and not theological differences, I think!

 

Well . . . uh . . . all of Acts is for the Church today except for those parts, which are for a previous dispensation.

 

OK lets throw some dice and appoint some apostles.

HankD