Rightly Understanding Mark 16 Will End All Doubts as to Its Authenticity

[JD731]

The chapter begins very early in the morning on Resurrection day and it ends with events of ascension day forty days later.

In this chapter we have the apostolic commission to Israel.

Jesus had told these disciples, and it is recorded in John 20, that he was giving them his Spirit (by breathing on them) to dwell in them and they would have his authority on the earth to forgive or to retain sins.

He instructed them to whom they were to preach and what they were to say.

He said they were to preach to every creature and he told them they, the creatures, were in the world.

He instructed them to preach that he had risen from the dead and said that those who believed and were baptized in water would receive the Holy Ghost.

Later, in Acts 2 when Peter preached this gospel to Israel and they asked him what they must do, he said the exact thing that Jesus told him to say, which was "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Receiving the Spirit into ones body as a permanent resident is the definition of being saved.

This commission is in the context of the kingdom gospel, whose beginning is Israelitish.

Faith, logic. and reason are our friends when considering these things.

 

[JD731]

You are right there, JD731. These same apostles are preaching a brand new message now. It is that Jesus whom you crucified is now risen from the dead and is ascended to heaven to his Father's Throne. These 12 apostles and 70 elders are the structure of the kingdom after the pattern of Moses in the wilderness. This comparison is not original with me but I read it in the KJV. You might want to read it. Here it is;

12 ¶ And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, a[did also your rulers.
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

The men with the scholarly reputations who write the books denying the faith and casting doubt on Mark 16 cannot figure these simple truths out.

 

[JD731]

The simple truth of the command to be baptized in water to "be saved." First by our Lord Jesus. Mark 16:16. then by Peter in Acts 2:38.

Some sanity applied to this command.

God is a trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three. Co equal and co the same.

Israel, the nation, was baptized in water in connection with their national birth by the Father;

1 Cor 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
______________________

In connection with the son when he came;

John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
___________________

In connection to the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is doctrinal as it applies to salvation of the nation. Seventy eight times in 77 verses in the KJV Bible the phrase "in Christ" appears. The baptism by these men who have been given the authority of Jesus Christ himself completes the visual for Israel that God intends by this act of baptism. One would expect the number seven to be associated with this completion. Another number that is associated with national Israel is the number eleven. This is the number that falls short of God's perfect government, represented by the number twelve. Because of this falling short of every one of the nation to come, there is going to be a need for a purging, which is a baptism of fire that is scheduled for this people as prophesied here; See note below:

Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you (#1) with the Holy Ghost,and(#2) with fire:

Note:
Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

If there is a lack of one being converted it will not work and the picture is not complete. The nation is pictured as the son of God. Ex 4:22 The son must be in the water and the water must be in the son.
John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

There have been 3 water baptisms for the nation Israel, one each by each member of the Godhead. There are visuals for the fire baptisms as well but that is for another post.

 

[Charlie24]

The simple truth of the command to be baptized in water to "be saved." First by our Lord Jesus. Mark 16:16. then by Peter in Acts 2:38.

Some sanity applied to this command.

God is a trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three in one and one in three. Co equal and co the same.

Israel, the nation, was baptized in water in connection with their national birth by the Father;

1 Cor 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
______________________

In connection with the son when he came;

John 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
___________________

In connection to the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is doctrinal as it applies to salvation of the nation. Seventy eight times in 77 verses in the KJV Bible the phrase "in Christ" appears. The baptism by these men who have been given the authority of Jesus Christ himself completes the visual for Israel that God intends by this act of baptism. One would expect the number seven to be associated with this completion. Another number that is associated with national Israel is the number eleven. This is the number that falls short of God's perfect government, represented by the number twelve. Because of this falling short of every one of the nation to come, there is going to be a need for a purging, which is a baptism of fire that is scheduled for this people as prophesied here; See note below:

Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you (#1) with the Holy Ghost,and(#2) with fire:

Note:
Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

If there is a lack of one being converted it will not work and the picture is not complete. The nation is pictured as the son of God. Ex 4:22 The son must be in the water and the water must be in the son.
John 4:14
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

There have been 3 water baptisms for the nation Israel, one each by each member of the Godhead. There are visuals for the fire baptisms as well but that is for another post.

This is confusing for me, seeing that Mark 16:16 can be interpreted 3 different ways.

I can't see in the OP which one of the 3 ways you have favored.

But it wouldn't surprise me that I've missed the entire point of the OP.

 

[JD731]

This is confusing for me, seeing that Mark 16:16 can be interpreted 3 different ways.

I can't see in the OP which one of the 3 ways you have favored.

But it wouldn't surprise me that I've missed the entire point of the OP.

Mark 16:16 can be, and often is interpreted in many different ways depending on who is doing the interpreting. My point for the op is not to interpret it but to believe the words are those given to Mark and then to believe what they clearly say. But. if interpretation is still needed then allow the historical record of what the apostles said and did to interpret the meaning according to that.

If these scholars are right and the last twelve verses of Mark are not from God, then I cannot be sure that God himself put the condition of being baptized in water in order for this nation of Israel to receive the Holy Ghost at that particular time.

You do understand the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant and God's investment in the people and the land, don't you? This covenant is brought up by the preacher in Acts 3 as the motivation for the actions of God.

 

[Charlie24]

Mark 16:16 can be, and often is interpreted in many different ways depending on who is doing the interpreting. My point for the op is not to interpret it but to believe the words are those given to Mark and then to believe what they clearly say. But. if interpretation is still needed then allow the historical record of what the apostles said and did to interpret the meaning according to that.

If these scholars are right and the last twelve verses of Mark are not from God, then I cannot be sure that God himself put the condition of being baptized in water in order for this nation of Israel to receive the Holy Ghost at that particular time.

You do understand the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant and God's investment in the people and the land, don't you? This covenant is brought up by the preacher in Acts 3 as the motivation for the actions of God.

I've heard all my life of those who believe it's a write in but that has been disclaimed by so many I just disregard it.

I was getting more into the interpretation, but I see that's not your direction, that's fine.

 

[JD731]

I've heard all my life of those who believe it's a write in but that has been disclaimed by so many I just disregard it.

I was getting more into the interpretation, but I see that's not your direction, that's fine.

Well, consider. Christianity is about faith. The claim is that God inspired the words in our Bibles and our knowledge and understanding of God and his ways can be known and proven by those words. The Bible then is for believers. It is not for unbelievers. People who deny it are by default, unbelievers. They do not believe it is the words of God. That is your position. You have three positions for just one chapter in the scriptures. You are believing unbelievers who are commenting on something they readily admit they do not believe and are trying to prove by scholarship is not true and should be doubted. Now, they present these arguments to you and you are faced with either believing what is written by someone who says he is God and inspired Mark 16 and someone who says he did not. They offer words to prove it that were not written by God but man, or men.

If you are on record claiming that you do not believe the Bible I am just going to believe you are telling me the truth. I am sure God understands what you are saying and accepts the fact you are lining yourself up with other unbelievers. This of course is your choice.

Jesus said this once, if you believe it: He that is not with me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Here is another cut and dried statement: He that hath the son hath life, and he that hath not the son of God hath not life.

Jesus said to the Father once: Lu 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Think about that kind of believing. This is not the kind of believing the critics are doing. The critics are not babes.

 

[canadyjd]

Biblical Greek scholars recognize a very different writing style in the latter verses. It’s very unlikely the same person wrote those verses.

I believe what is taught can be found in other verses, if understood in context.

Not really worth a protracted battle over, imo.

Peace to you

 

[JD731]

The scholars will likely never understand the scriptures because the object of their studies are not the scriptures. They generally sit in the seat of the scornful. They seek light in the midst of darkness. They come to wrong conclusions because their authority is misplaced. They are gods when they come to conclusions that differ from the scriptures.

The word saved, or save, is in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in a total of 50 verses. This word has several different meanings in these various verses. The context must be considered in many cases to determine the meaning. For instance, the word is used in this manner several times in these gospel accounts.


All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

This word in this context means "except."

There are maybe one or two verses where save means salvation in the NT definition of deliverance from the condemnation of sin and death by receiving eternal life from God because of the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ but who would know that before the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the subject of Mark 16. Here is one;

Matthew 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Nobody on the planet understood Jesus Christ when he began to speak of going to Jerusalem to die and rise from the dead. So no one knew how God was going to save his people from their sins until Mark 16:15-16 when Jesus Christ told them for the first time. "his people" are Israel, from the stock of Abraham and he told these preachers, who he commissioned with the resurrection doctrine to go to them with evidence bearing miracles to tell them if they will believe in his name (Jesus = Jehovah IS salvation), be baptized in water, he would save them under the post resurrection definition of salvation, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost to permanently indwell them, giving them eternal life.

He was keeping his promise to Abraham first and later he opened the door of faith to the whole world, keeping the promise to Abraham that in his Seed all the the families of the earth will be blessed, a demonstration of his marvelous grace to us by faith alone in his gospel.

The man who is marginalizing and failing to defend Mark 16 as scripture is doing despite to the doctrine of salvation and the integrity of the scriptures, IMO.

 

[canadyjd]

The name “Jesus” is the common Hebrew name “Yeshua” translated in OT as Joshua and means deliverer.

Strange to see you mock scholars and in the next breath attempt to explain the various meanings of words…. Which actually relies on scholarship.

Like others on this site, you simply dismiss true knowledge that comes from a lifetime of diligent study of scripture and posit your own understanding as the only valid interpretation.

All done now. You can continue with your thread.

Peace to you

 

[Van]

From the Internet:

• The oldest Old Latin manuscript (VL 1 = Codex Bobiensis, from the fourth or fifth century) concludes at Mark 16:8 with a version of the Shorter Ending and lacks 16:9–20
• The oldest Syriac manuscript (the Sinaitic Syriac, from the fourth century) ends at 16:8
• The oldest Sahidic manuscript (sa 1 = P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182, from the fifth century) ends at 16:8
• The earliest evidence we have for the Christian Palestinian Aramaic version of Mark (Codex Sinaiticus Rescriptus in St Petersburg, Syr. No. 16) ends at 16:8
• The oldest Armenian manuscripts (going back to the ninth century) end at 16:8
• The oldest Georgian manuscripts (translated from the Armenian) end at 16:8

Next, the long ending contradicts the other Gospels with its Mary Magdalene claim.

Next, the style and vocabulary is dissimilar to Mark and similar to Luke.

Next, early church fathers indicated they were aware of longer endings, but supported the view Mark ended at verse 8.

It seems clear to me that in his letter to Marinus, in discussing the problem of harmonizing Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9, Eusebius not only quotes from the perspective of the person who would regard the Longer Ending as spurious—where he reports that “the accurate copies” end at 16:8—but that he himself also affirms that this was the ending of Mark “in nearly all the copies” (to Marinus 1).8 Eusebius does also attempt a harmonization, for the sake of argument, assuming that the Longer Ending was part of the text of Mark, but Eusebius is offering a complex double sort of approach here.9 What is also clear is that, in the construction of his influential Canon Tables, Eusebius did not include the Longer Ending of Mark.10​

The effort to claim Mark 16:9-20 is not questionable, and should not be independently relied upon for doctrine is without merit.

 

[37818]

Mark 16:1-20. 98.8% of the Creek mss.

 

[JD731]

The name “Jesus” is the common Hebrew name “Yeshua” translated in OT as Joshua and means deliverer.

Strange to see you mock scholars and in the next breath attempt to explain the various meanings of words…. Which actually relies on scholarship.

Like others on this site, you simply dismiss true knowledge that comes from a lifetime of diligent study of scripture and posit your own understanding as the only valid interpretation.

All done now. You can continue with your thread.

Peace to you

Without faith it is impossible to please God; - Heb 11:6

Mark 12:37
..... And the common people heard him gladly.

My question did not get an answer from the self proclaimed scholars; What was it? It was, How would the Jewish people know how to be saved without Mark 16:15-16?" NNo one believed he had risen from the dead, which logically means that Jesus Christ was not preaching that gospel during the course of his earthly ministry. The 12 disciples and 70 elders knew and understood nothing about this gospel before this event.

Mark 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

John 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

 

[Van]

From the Internet:

Textual Criticism:
While the long ending is widely attested, textual critics acknowledge that its presence in the majority of manuscripts doesn't definitively prove its original inclusion in Mark's Gospel. The absence of the long ending in the earliest and most authoritative manuscripts, along with internal evidence (style, vocabulary, etc.), leads some scholars to believe it was a later addition.​

 

[JesusFan]

Biblical Greek scholars recognize a very different writing style in the latter verses. It’s very unlikely the same person wrote those verses.

I believe what is taught can be found in other verses, if understood in context.

Not really worth a protracted battle over, imo.

Peace to you

Still think one can see it as a way that someone chose to "smooth over" the abrupt ending of the shorter Mark ending, as they did use the known Apostolic signs and wonders as the way to "complete and fill it in"

 

[canadyjd]

Still think one can see it as a way that someone chose to "smooth over" the abrupt ending of the shorter Mark ending, as they did use the known Apostolic signs and wonders as the way to "complete and fill it in"

That is a possibility. It seems to be a later addition

Peace to you

 

[JesusFan]

That is a possibility. It seems to be a later addition

Peace to you

Just trying to have everyone see on this issue that just because one may dispute if Mark Gospel had either a longer or shorter ending originally not anything to do with how we see Bible inspiration and inerrancy of the Originals

 

[Van]

Any and all uninspired "fixes" to God's word are condemned by God's word, i.e. do not add or take away. Yes, it is hard to accept what we learned before was not exactly what God's word actually says, but we should keep on studying and comparing notes.

 

[37818]

Revelation 1:1, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants . . . .

Revelation 19:10, And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 22:18-19, For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the tree of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[John of Japan]

Biblical Greek scholars recognize a very different writing style in the latter verses. It’s very unlikely the same person wrote those verses.

I believe what is taught can be found in other verses, if understood in context.

Not really worth a protracted battle over, imo.

Peace to you

Actually, only some "biblical Greek scholars" recognize a different writing style in the longer ending. The argument is that the longer ending of Mark uses some words that are used nowhere else in Mark. I don't have a problem with that. When the subject changes, the author has to use different vocabulary. On the other thread, I attached a short book of mine published in 1979 in which I use very different styes in Ch. 3-4 (hortatory) as compared to Ch. 1-2 (narrative). I'll attach that here in case someone is interested.

Dr. Maurice Robinson has done a comparison of Mark 1:32-39 with Mark 16:9-20, and the style and vocabulary of the two passages are very similar ("The Longer Ending of Mark as Canonical Verity," p. 69, in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark). Dr Robinson does this kind of comparison with a couple of other passages also--very convincing to me.