The End Part of the Gospel of Mark

Many of the modern versions omit the last several verses of the 16th chapter of Mark.

These versions leave Jesus in the grave and the disciples cowering in fear.

IMO, it is an attempt of satan trying to plant doubt in the mind that Christ arose. First these passages removed, tomorrow, more.

They try to cover their tracks of removing verses by saying ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

 

This site summarizes four major variants found in the Mark ending and major manuscripts that support those endings.

The key to the manuscript and translation abbreviations is here.

The link for the appendix is incorrect. It should point to : The Style Of The Long Ending Of Mark

 

1.) Although Jesus was in a body, it was not a glorified one. He had not returned to His Father yet.

What kind of body? Flesh and bone. Blood is not mentioned, for it all was lost at Calvary.

An interesting thing, Mary recognized Jesus after He spoke. Maybe the 'different form' was what Mary saw as well, for she thought He was the gardener.

It was not until He spoke her name that she recognized Him. And we know the disciples that evening saw Him in the locked room, Thomas not being present.

He spoke to the eleven before they acknowledged it was them at that time also. So maybe He took on a different form from the moment He left the tomb. Yet, He still kept those scars from the nails.


2.) I am not sure, but that is an important verse, as you see.

 

How's that again? No blood?

A resurrected body without blood is not a resurrected body. Sure, Jesus shed his blood, but how do you figure "it was all lost at Calvary?" Blood wasn't mentioned, but neither was hair. You reckon Jesus was bald, too?

If God can raise Jesus from the dead, He can probably scrounge up an extra pint or two of plasma.

 

It was yet dark when Mary went to the tomb, but she saw the stone was moved away from the entrance. She ran and told Simon Peter and that other disciple.

The two disciples ran to the tomb. They entered the tomb and saw the grave linens and the napkin that that covered the face.

They left.

Now, it could have gotten light by then, for Mary was able to see in the tomb when she stooped down and looked in. (it stands to reason if it was too dark for her to see Jesus' face, then it would have been even harder to see in the dark tomb, yet the disciples and Mary all were able to see in it).

Mary was not in the tomb at all, she stooped down and looked in. She saw two angels and talked with them. Then she turned around and saw Jesus.

I believe it was not grief that hid Jesus' face from Mary. For, she ran down the road and saw and talked with the disciples. The Bible does not say she supposed them to be someone else.

 

How's that again? No blood?

A resurrected body without blood is not a resurrected body. Sure, Jesus shed his blood, but how do you figure "it was all lost at Calvary?" Blood wasn't mentioned, but neither was hair. You reckon Jesus was bald, too?

If God can raise Jesus from the dead, He can probably scrounge up an extra pint or two of plasma. </font>[/QUOTE]Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

NO blood mentioned here.

THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY.
(1) It is a real, physical body (Lu 24:36-43) .
(2) It is an incorruptible body (1Co 15:42) . It is not subject to decay and infirmity.
(3) It is a glorified body (1Co 15:43) . This speaks of the kingly glory of the resurrected Christ in which the believer will share.
(4) It is a spiritual body (1Co 15:44). This does not mean the resurrection body is not physical, which would contradict the entire testimony of Scripture; it means the resurrection body is not natural like man's present body. 1Co. 15:44 contrasts the natural body with the spiritual body. Both are real bodies, but they are different types of bodies. In man's present condition, man's spirit is subject to the body to a large degree; in the resurrection, the spirit will control the body. Of the cherubim, the Scripture says, "Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went" (Eze 1:20). This will be true for the resurrected believer.
(5) It is an immortal body (1Co 15:53). This means it is not subject to death.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

 

Hi, Bro. Ruben.

Personally, I think the long ending of Mark belongs there. There is solid manuscript evidence for it (even Vaticanus, I think it is, has a space for where it should have been, but it was not copied), many church fathers refer to it, and the chapter reads strangely without it or even with the shorter ending.

Now for your questions:

(1) The Greek word here is "morphe," and there is no real problem with its interpretation. Here is what A. T. Robertson says: "'In another form (en heterâi morphêi).' It was not a metamorphôsis or transfiguration like that described in Mr 9:2. Luke explains that their eyes were holden so that they could not recognize Jesus (Lu 24:16). This matchless story appears in full in Lu 24:13-32."

(2) There is nothing specific in Scripture about drinking poison, but the concept is not foreign to our faith. I believe it was Richard Wurbrand who told about being accosted by a prison guard in Rumania, where he was imprisoned for the cause of Christ. The guard showed him this passaged and said, "If the Bible is true, you can drink this poison I have and not be harmed. Drink it!" Wurmbrand drank it and was protected by the Lord.

God bless.

 

Diggin in da Word:

==I had to verify this claim so I went through my library and checked every Bible version I have. Not one of them lack these verses. Not one. They all, KJV included, have notes about this text either in the margin or before this section. So I would like to know what major modern translations "omit" the long ending of Mark.

The short ending of Mark does not leave Jesus in the grave (as you falsely claim). The long ending starts at verse 9. However we find the wonderful fact of the resurrection in verse 6-7:

___________________________________________

==Since the passages have not been removed, and since verses 6-7 contain the resurrection message, and since both Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, and all the Epistles and Letters proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead I must doubt your "satan trying to plant doubt" claim.

I must ask you, on what basis do you claim these verses have been "removed"?

____________________________________________

==This gets into textual issues that are complicated. However the statement is correct. The majority of manuscripts do contain the long ending, however the earliest most trusted manuscripts do not. This does not mean the verses are false but it does mean we should seek to find out if they are part of Mark's original gospel or not. Personally I think it does not matter. Take the verses or leave them the message does not change. As pointed out above Mark's gospel proclaims Jesus' resurrection before the questioned verses and the rest of the New Testament proclaims the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

This is not about people removing verses.
These are scholars working with the text just like the scholars who translated the KJV did. Modern scholars use various manuscript tools (etc) and make the best judgments they can about textual issues.

There is no conspiracy here. Sorry to disappoint.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

Blood is formed in the bone marrow and travels through the flesh to nourish it with oxygen, glucose and other nutrients.

I don't believe I've ever heard of the phrase "flesh, bone and blood" when someone refers to a whole body. It is usually just "flesh and bone" or "flesh and blood". "flesh and bone" usually includes blood. "flesh and blood" usually includes bone.

[ February 25, 2006, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

double post edited

 

Martin,

Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome did not go and tell the news, but went and hid in fear. Why did they not tell the disciples as commanded? Verse 8 says 'neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.' So, the disciples still did not know.

Then, the modern verses interject that 'The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.'

Just inserting that little sentence casts doubt that the last 12 verses even belong in the chapter. My sister has a NIV that has that missing. I have seen others with it missing. It is not in there except at bottom of page they insert a footnote saying what is omitted.

 

standingfirminChrist:

==Actually Mark 16:8 is in agreement with Matthew 28:8. They evidentially did go tell the disciples at some point as the angel commanded them (Matthew 28:8-9 and Luke 24:9). If verse 8 is where Mark stopped writing then he chose not to include that material in his Gospel account. This would not shed doubt on the event since all four of the Gospels are selective with what events they record (ie...they are not identical). So if verse 8 is where Mark stopped then it is where his Gospel stopped. We can't add to it just because we don't like his ending. Someone (who was uncomfortable with Mark's ending) may have come along at a early point and added verses 9 and following thinking the shorter ending was not correct (the grammer of verse 9 may in fact support that theory). The fact that these verses mainly appear in later (and thus the majority of our manuscripts) manuscripts sheds some doubt on the idea that Mark actually wrote it. Even by the 4th century Eusebius and Jerome noted that the majority of their manuscripts did not contain the long ending of Mark.
______________________________________

==That sentence is not there to cast doubt. Rather the note is there to present a factual situation. We are being honest with the text. There is no conspiracy among translators to cause doubt about the Bible. To leave the textual note out, along with other textual notes, would leave the reader unaware of textual variants.

_________________________________________

==Where what is omited? The note or the text? If you are talking about the text being put in a footnote that is simply how some publishers deal with the issue. I have several NIV Bibles in my library and all of them have verse 9 and following in the main portion of the text. Then they offer a side note explaining the situation with the text.

In Christ,
Martin.

 

The Ending of Mark

Click the link to read the entire article. Below is an excerpt:

 

A couple of thoughts:

The "no blood" arguement is silly. It also didn't mention Jesus' appendix, parietal lobe, and toenails. But I be He had them. Let's not make the Bible make points that it doesn't intend to make.

Second, I have a question: any of ya'll ever preached or taught from this passage? Just curious...

 

First of all, it's kind of getting off topic, but I just had to comment! Rbell, how in the world do you (or any of us) know what a resurrection body is like? Frankly, I don't think He has (not "had") an is appendix or parietal lobe. (No need for them in Heaven!) Toenails? Maybe! "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" ...So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (1 Cor. 15:35, 42-44)

For your second point, yes, I've preached many times on Mark's Great Commission.