The disputed ending of Mark 16.

[rstrats]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

***Moderator note***

I am moving this thread to Other Denominations forum as the OPer is none baptist----please note that the upper forum sections are reserved for Baptist only posters

Thanks
Blackbird

 

[Ruiz]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

This is not the only place where the first day of the week is mentioned for the Resurrection (Matthew 18:1, Luke 14:1, John 20:1)

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "This is not the only place where the first day of the week is mentioned for the Resurrection (Matthew 18:1, Luke 14:1) "
　
I don’t see where those verses say anything about a resurrection.

 

[Ruiz]

The first day of the week, the stone is turned away, and is alive. It couldn't have happened after that day, nor could it have happened before that day (the 3 days in the tomb thing). There is a clear teaching, even more clear than the Trinity.

 

[preacher4truth]

Hi rstrats,

I think Ruiz means Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1.

 

[Ruiz]

Hi rstrats,

I think Ruiz means Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1.

Sorry, I must be had my hands hit the wrong numbers. You are correct.

 

[rstrats]

OK; I don’t see where Matthew 28:1 or Luke 24:1 say anything about a resurrection. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.

 

[Ruiz]

OK; I don’t see where Matthew 28:1 or Luke 24:1 say anything about a resurrection. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.

RS,

Look at the context. The context is the Resurrection. We can't separate the verse from the context. Thus, we know that he did not rise from the dead later nor earlier.

 

[preacher4truth]

OK; I don’t see where Matthew 28:1 or Luke 24:1 say anything about a resurrection. They only say that the women came to the tomb on the first of the week.

Have you attempted reading past the verse to see the context?

 

[rstrats]

Ruiz,

re: "Look at the context. The context is the Resurrection. We can't separate the verse from the context."

If additional verses are necessary to support your position, then they should have been referenced. I was merely commenting on the ones that you referenced.
　

re: "Thus, we know that he did not rise from the dead later nor earlier."

Later, yes, but the context doesn’t preclude earlier. Only Mark 16:9 does.

Do you have any information about an author?

 

[rstrats]

preacher4truth,

re: "Have you attempted reading past the verse to see the context?"

Indeed I have, and I don’t see where the context precludes a seventh day resurrection.

 

[Deacon]

I’m not sure I agree with the statement you made, however here are some authors that mention Mark 16:9 exclusively in connection with the Sabbath.

The first day of the week’ (v. 2) is Sunday (cf. Mark 16:9) and it provides a good focus for our giving as it is then that we meet together for worship, teaching and fellowship.

Derek Prime, Opening Up 1 Corinthians (Leominister: Day One Publications, 2005). 143.

“On the morrow after the sabbath,” viz. of the Paschal week, the sheaf of the firstfruits was waved before the Lord (vers. 10, 11). This was a type of Christ in his resurrection as the Firstfruits of the great harvest (see 1 Cor. 15:20–23). But when Christ died, the sabbath of the Paschal week happened upon the day in which he lay in the tomb (comp. John 19:31; Luke 6:1). Thus the morrow after this sabbath was precisely that first day of the week on which our Lord arose (Mark 16:9). How strengthening to faith are all these correspondences!—J. A. M.

The Pulpit Commentary: Leviticus, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones. 357. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004.

Rob

 

[preacher4truth]

Ruiz,

re: "Look at the context. The context is the Resurrection. We can't separate the verse from the context."

If additional verses are necessary to support your position, then they should have been referenced. I was merely commenting on the ones that you referenced.
　

re: "Thus, we know that he did not rise from the dead later nor earlier."

Later, yes, but the context doesn’t preclude earlier. Only Mark 16:9 does.

Do you have any information about an author?

John Walvoord and other commentators agree that the Resurrection took place on the first day of the week.

 

[preacher4truth]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

Which authors have you consulted and then concluded they don't state and hold to first day resurrection?

 

[rstrats]

Deacon,

re: "... here are some authors that mention Mark 16:9 exclusively in connection with the Sabbath."
　
Thanks for the two references. I’ll have to try and get copies because it’s not clear to me from the quotes that the authors are arguing for a change of observance of the seventh to the first day because of the idea of a first day resurrection.

 

[rstrats]

preacher4truth,

re: "John Walvoord and other commentators agree that the Resurrection took place on the first day of the week."

But do they argue for a change of observance of the seventh to the first day because of the idea of a first day resurrection and use Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection?

 

[saturneptune]

I read an article about the disputed end of Mark. I thought he died of old age, and all this time he got hit by a chariot.

 

[preacher4truth]

preacher4truth,

re: "John Walvoord and other commentators agree that the Resurrection took place on the first day of the week."

But do they argue for a change of observance of the seventh to the first day because of the idea of a first day resurrection and use Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection?

This is an age old argument. Many agree with this, some do not.

As far as salvation is concerned, that rests solely on the Gospel of Christ alone.

Of course then come the Judaizers.

Read Colossians, Galatians about our freedom in Christ.

We know that the disciples worshiped on the first day of the week as is shown in the Scriptures.

I don't see anywhere that says they worshiped and assembled on the Sabbath day, and that it was the mandate for the church to do so.

 

[freeatlast]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

If you are interested in the timing then read these;
http://www.gerald285.com/index.php?p=1_29_Crucifixion-Week-1

http://www.gerald285.com/index.php?p=1_30_Crucifixion-Week-2

 

[rstrats]

preacher4truth,

re: "This is an age old argument. Many agree with this, some do not."

And for the purpose of this topic I’m only interested in those authors that do.
　


re: "Read Colossians, Galatians about our freedom in Christ."

Does that include freedom to ignore the 10 commandments?
　


re: "We know that the disciples worshiped on the first day of the week as is shown in the Scriptures."

Actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first. The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a celebration, worship service or day of rest. The Acts reference has them together because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

But even if the "breaking of bread mentioned" always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.