Well, relative to the whole of Scripture, the entire Word of God, there are only a small number of verses that are controversial. And I'm emphasizing that relative idea there, relative to the whole, because there's a lot of verses, obviously, in the Bible. But there are a small number of verses that are controversial. The reason is they are debated over such things as the fact that they're just plain hard to figure out sometimes, a few, a handful, or the debate is over seemingly a contradiction between one verse and another verse, or the reason they are debated is because it's just questionable as to whether or not they are actually part of the original writings. On that last issue, whether something in our Bibles was actually in the original manuscripts, we are talking about usually a particular word that might show up here and there that has to be evaluated from that standpoint. We might normally be talking even about a phrase, perhaps even a verse. It's usually something small like that with one notable exception. And that is the section consisting of 12 verses in Mark at the end of what we call the Gospel of Mark, Mark chapter 16, verses 9 to 20. The debate concerning these verses, Mark 16, 9 to 20, is over whether or not Mark actually did write these verses. Now the King James Version, or what is sometimes also called the Authorized Version, as you know, does contain these verses. Other translations, however, as you probably know as well, all indicate in one way or another that there is a doubt about their authenticity. For example, the Revised Standard Version, RSV, relegates them to just a fine print footnote at the end. The Phillips translation calls them, quote, an ancient appendix. And others, such as the New American Standard or the ESV, which we're very familiar with both of those around here, translations like those put this section in brackets, beginning brackets and ending brackets. Or sometimes you'll find a note to the effect that something like this, the earliest manuscripts or the oldest and best manuscripts do not contain this verse. In this case, a translation might say those oldest and best manuscripts do not contain these verses, verses nine through 20. So it is obvious that everyone is not in agreement over this issue since there is at least one major translation that includes them as being authentic, the King James. There are other translations that include them, but put notes or brackets. So everyone's not in agreement over this issue, but when I say everyone, I am talking about everyone even within the conservative camp. In other words, there have been some folks who try to make the case that those who doubt the veracity of a passage like this are obviously liberals, and that's not true. Or New Agers, I've heard that as well. They try to make the case that people who don't affirm a section like this or affirm some of the modern translations are people who really don't even believe in the inspiration and inerrancy and authority of scripture. Some even say that Christian orthodoxy itself depends on whether or not you believe these disputed verses are part of God's word. Those are the same types of people who insist as well that the New American Standard Bible or the ESV translation and anything like those are nothing more than demon-inspired translations. I'd read things about that from time to time, especially in our area. But all of that is just not true. Many who doubt the legitimacy of this passage are conservatives who love Christ. who believe the gospel, people who affirm the inspiration of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture, the authority of scripture, and the sufficiency of the Bible. So as we discuss this tonight, I believe we need to see this debate mostly as one that is within the family, so to speak, of what I would call conservatives who affirm scripture. Now, there's something else we need to understand as we take on this controversy tonight, and that is something related to the original manuscripts, the actual papyri or notebook paper, they didn't have that, but something, whatever they had, the actual documents that the original writers wrote on, the original manuscripts. The bottom line is this. The Christian church does not possess the original manuscripts, not any of them, of any book in the Bible. And that means we don't have the original manuscript of the gospel which Mark wrote. Just like for all other books, we have only copies. And in many cases now, fragments of copies, of various copies. Sometimes those copies or fragments of copies contain slight differences from one to another. It may be a word that is different or occasionally, like I said before, even a phrase or even an entire verse. But as I've already noted, here in Mark chapter 16, we encounter this unusual problem that a long section consisting of 12 verses is considered by many not to be part of the original manuscripts. Let me just stop and ask the question, how does that occur? The fact that there can be copies of manuscripts that don't agree with one another. There can be some variation between them. Why do these differences occur? Well, just remember something. That the Gospels, and we'll just use that as an example tonight, since we're talking about the Gospel of Mark, the Gospels were written long before the invention of the printing press. I mean, Mark was not able to take this document he had been writing and take it to the local printer and ask them to typeset it and then, you know, get the proofs back from them and kind of read over it and say, well, you know, my first order, I want a thousand copies. Exactly the same, printed for distribution. How did somebody get a copy of Mark's gospel? Well, if anyone wanted a copy, They had to sit down with what Mark had written and laboriously copy it by hand. And if by any chance they copied a word wrongly or left something out, then that mistake would likely be repeated when someone else made a copy of their copy. That's just the way it is. This is what did transpire for 1,500 years until another method became available. people making copies by hand for 1,500 years. So it's not surprising that if you think about it, the earliest manuscripts and copies would stand to be the most accurate. And that many small discrepancies crept into more likely later manuscript copies. That's just the nature of that. So how can we be sure that we have then the genuine text which Mark wrote or anybody else wrote? Only by trying to trace the copies back to their originals the best we can. And examining these copies from what in theology we would call a textual standpoint. That is what textual criticism experts do. There is a whole discipline called critical or textual criticism. They start by, and this is a very brief overview of that process, believe me, they start by placing copies in families. based upon various characteristics that are similar. And then they determine which ones from that are the earliest copies. And finally, through some very technical evaluations, they work out what the likelihood of certain mistakes could have been made in the copying, even determining how they happened. So overall, all I'm telling you is, overall, it is best to find the earliest and oldest manuscript copies. Because the later that manuscript is dated, the more likely there could be the presence of some changes. Think about this with me too. What is the most common kind of change that would occur? This has been proven over and over and over that no doubt the most common kind of change that would happen would be additions. Additions to the text. Copyists tended to be very prone to adding things and not deleting things. They would add things, a word, a phrase, sometimes even a whole verse, to smooth things over if a statement was difficult for them to understand. They would sometimes insert something like that as an interpretation to kind of help the flow of thought. Or if they believed a gap was there, or if they believed something was missing, then they would definitely add something at that point. For that reason, textual experts understand that generally, not only are the oldest manuscripts the most reliable generally, but also the shorter version of manuscripts or the shorter version of verses tend to be the most accurate because copyists were prone to add. Also, If that shorter version is as well the more challenging version to understand, the more challenging one to accept, it's been proven over and over that that too then lends to the proof that it likely is the closest to the original. Because those are the kind of things copyists would try to fix. Now tonight we are going to tackle this issue in Mark of whether verses nine through 20 belong to the book There is no way to cover every position and every sub-position held, so we're just gonna talk about the two main ones. Position number one, Mark did write it. Position number two, Mark did not write it, okay? Those are the two broad positions. Are we all together then, okay? Mark did write it or he did not write it. Now under that second position, Mark did not write it. That second position is broken down into two branches or two subgroups. I'll go back and talk about all of this. Here are the two subgroups under Mark did not write this. Branch number one, Mark intended to conclude his gospel with the words that we studied last time, chapter 16, verse eight. In other words, he did not write the rest of this because he intended all along not to write any more. It was his desire to end at verse 8. Or the other sub-branch is Mark did not write this other section called the longer ending, by the way. That's its sort of colloquial nickname, the longer ending. Mark did not intend to conclude his gospel at verse 8. He did not intend at all to end there, but he did intend to write more. Okay, so those are two sub-branches. Now, I'm submitting to you tonight that of the two big positions, Mark did write it or Mark did not write it. I'm submitting to you, first of all, that the second position is the correct view. Mark did not write verses nine through 20. So there it is, let's close in prayer. And this went a lot faster than I thought. Okay, I suppose there's more to say. I'm gonna give you the reasons why it is apparent to many conservative scholars that these verses are not part of Mark's original gospel. First of all, we're going to look at what textual students and scholars would call external evidence and internal evidence, okay? External evidence first. Here's some examples of external evidence related to these verses. These verses, number one, this would be part of external evidence, these verses are lacking in some very important early manuscripts. They're not in them. Now, let me make some more comments on this, about this discipline called textual criticism. And this is gonna be the most technical section of the things we say tonight, when I just show you that they're lacking in some very important manuscripts. The copies and fragments that we do have have been given names by textual experts. And I don't mean like Bob and Mary and things like that, but close sometimes. The fragments have been given names. The copies have been given names. Sometimes it's a name based upon where the fragment was found. Sometimes it's a number, a numerical name. In seminary, just as a side note, I was required to spend hours and hours and hours in my last year of seminary in a course dealing with this and having to learn all the differences between the various fragments and the copies. Matt and Jared are working on their MDiv as we speak and they are having to or will have to deal with this very tedious course as well. So I will try to keep my comments about manuscripts brief, but believe me, what I am saying is important. Now, the two earliest manuscript copies have names. A copy would be called, in technical language, a codex, C-O-D-E-X, that's just a general kind of category. There is Codex B, letter B, it's a very famous copy. and Codex Aleph, A-L-E-P-H, Aleph, that's a Hebrew letter, first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, Aleph, letter A, basically. There's Codex B and Codex Aleph. These have two other famous names, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. You don't have to remember any of that, but I will tell you, these very early copies date from the 300s, okay? So that's really old in technical language. And this longer ending is missing in these very, very important early manuscripts. In fact, the scribe who made B, the scribe who made the copy that we have called B, contrary to his usual practice, because he had a habit, you can tell, okay, this is what he did. When he got here, he left a blank column after concluding Mark at verse 8, He left a blank column there, though, that had these words that he wrote in. In other words, this was the last verse of the copy, verse 8, and it had a blank and a column, and then he put, according to Mark. That little comment was letting us know that he knew that there was a longer edition out there, but he wanted folks to know it's ending here according to Mark. They are also missing, and believe me, if you're just gonna know two names of manuscripts, just know those, Codex B and Codex Olive, and you're okay. But there are more. These verses are also missing in Codex K, which has another name, Codex Bobiensis, which happens to be the very best example of the earliest African manuscript, which would be an old Latin text. It's missing from Codex K. It's missing in the Sinaitic Syriac Codex. It's missing in about 100 Armenian manuscripts. Let me emphasize how to say that word, Armenian. That's not the same thing as Arminian. Arminian is a country. missing in about 100 early Armenian manuscripts. There's a group of manuscripts called cursives. A number of cursives have verses 9 through 20 in them, but they add a note out to the side, a mark, a note of uncertainty about these verses. They're missing in some other very important early manuscripts, including the two oldest, what are called the Georgian manuscripts, one from AD 897, the other one AD 900 and something, 913. They're missing in those. Some of the manuscripts that do include these verses also have scribal notes stating that they are absent in some older Greek copies. So if they were later copies, the copyist would put a note in that we're aware that these are missing in earlier copies. And in other Greek manuscripts, the verses, if they're included, are marked with something like an asterisk to indicate that they are not authentic. Some manuscripts dating from the 6th century or later, as well as a whole slew of others, the Ethiopic, the Sahitic, the Harklian Syriac, and the earliest Bohiric copies, have two endings to mark. There's a whole group that have two endings from about the 6th century onward. They have this one, nicknamed the longer ending, and in addition, they have another ending that's out there called the shorter ending. And that shorter ending is inserted between verse eight and verse nine in this group of manuscripts. And it's only about what we would say maybe a paragraph. It's only about three or four sentences long. It's inserted in there. So they have the longer ending in addition to this one inserted in. We find a bunch like that, two endings. All alone, that shorter ending that I just talked to, it's found in one manuscript all by itself without all the other verses, without 9 through 20 following it. So one manuscript has that shorter ending after verse 8 all by itself. I can tell you something about the shorter ending. It's not controversial. Everybody is in agreement that that shorter ending is definitely a scribal addition. It was either an attempt to come up with an ending, because if you read through chapter 16 and you get to verse eight and you finish verse eight, I admit to you, it feels just a little bit like, and I will comment on that though later tonight. And so it's agreed by everyone that that shorter one is definitely a scribal edition. I should have brought it to read it to you. There's a couple of statements in there that are kind of weird, frankly. So somebody came up with it just to provide an ending, some sort of ending for this thing. Or to provide a smoother transition when it's inserted between verse eight and the rest of these verses, they've determined that some of those manuscripts that have both endings, the shorter one and then the longer one, the shorter one is inserted just to provide a smoother transition between verse eight and verse nine, because there is a problem there about the translation from, the transition from verse eight to verse nine, which I'll talk about. Then there is also another edition. Its name is the Freer, F-R-E-E-R, or the Washingtonian edition, and it's called that because the fragment that has that ending is kept in the Freer Museum, which is part of the Smithsonian in Washington. So it's called the Freer fragment, the Freer ending, or the Washingtonian ending. And it is very obviously just something stuck in. In fact, it occurs after verse 14. of the longer ending. Likely, they've determined to soften a little bit what is found in verse 14, which I'll comment on in a moment, and that is a condemnation by Jesus, supposedly, of the disciples in verse 14. So somebody realized, wow, that was unexpected, that was harsh, and so inserted something to kind of draw some attention away from that and to smooth it over, and then it goes on with verse 15 and following. I should point out one more issue related to manuscript copies. There are actually two basic types when it comes to the quality of the text. There is what is called the medieval type of text. There's hundreds and hundreds and hundreds that are kind of classified that way. The actual text itself is the medieval kind of text. That's considered the inferior of the two. The other one is called the text of medium value. That's just what it's called. And so you've got the medieval type of text, the medium value type of text. Those oldest two manuscripts that I told you about, Aleph and B, they're so important to us. Those oldest two manuscripts of the two types of texts, the inferior medieval and the better quality called the medium value, they're of that better quality, the medium value. That's another thing that makes them so significant. And it's those two very important early manuscripts that do not include these verses. Just so you'll know, The King James and New King James are based upon later manuscripts which are of the medieval type of Greek text. Now it cannot be denied that many Greek manuscripts do contain these words. I'm telling you about the ones that don't. Actually the majority of the copies do contain these verses. A lot of those go together, those later copies and text, medieval text copies, go together to form what is actually called the majority text. But when the manuscript evidence itself is properly evaluated and not just counted, see, that's a very important issue, not just to be, well, which is the most, but actually evaluate it and determine which is worth the most. then the balance swings heavily toward the omission of these verses and not the inclusion of them. I think this summary statement by a man named Everett Harrison captures what was the norm when it came to errors and copies that scribes were prone to add, like I said, and not delete. He wrote that if verses nine, and I'm paraphrasing some of this and we'll quote some of it, he wrote that if verses nine through 20 were part of the original, it is difficult to see then why scribes would have omitted them. Why would this large section be taken out? That's just not done by scribes. But if the copies ended abruptly at verse eight, quote, it is easy to see that there was a felt need for supplementation. And that does make sense. So when it comes to external evidence, this is an important aspect of external evidence, the fact that these verses are lacking in the important early and old manuscripts. Something else in this category of external evidence, and that is what the early church fathers, we called them, what they thought about this, what they said. For example, famous names, not that we agree with everything they said. This was a long, long time ago, of course. Clement of Alexandria, famous early church father in church history. Origen. The point is, whether we agree with them or not, it's not the issue on everything they taught. The importance is, those two early church fathers in their writings showed no knowledge of the existence of verses nine through 20. Eusebius. He's a very famous church historian. He was born about the year A.D. 260. He died about 340. He wrote this, this early church historian, quote, the most accurate copies and almost all the copies of Mark's gospel ended with the words of chapter 16, verse 8, for they were afraid. Jerome, famous name. who was probably born about the year that Eusebius died, so somewhere around 340, he wrote from Bethlehem, because he was there for a while, he wrote from Bethlehem in the early 400s that almost all the Greek copies created by that time. See, there's been more copies made after that, later copies. So copies are constantly being made from day one. All the copies created by that time, Jerome said, lacked verses nine through 20. One more name, Victor of Antioch, not quite as famous. He's later on in the fifth century, which is the 400s. He was the first known commentator on the book of Mark. He repeated that statement of Eusebius that the most accurate copies ended at verse eight. I do want to be fair on this issue though. It's true that also some early church fathers did talk about these verses. One is Irenaeus, very famous name. He, in his writings, never said anything about the verses that called him into question, is my point there. Two more names, Justin and Tertullian, both accepted that these verses were part of the original. But here's something important to consider. The very presence of these attempts to smooth things over, to fill in gaps, to complete the story, et cetera, along with the many notes along the way in manuscripts trying to explain the endings or spaces in some other manuscripts after verse eight are in themselves a very strong proof of something. The great theologian, conservative theologian and warrior for the scriptures, B.B. Warfield, said it this way. Quote, the existence of a shorter inclusion over against using the longer passage is a fortiori evidence against the longer one. It's just clear cut, a proof in and of itself against the longer one. If you want to have an opinion about the longer one, the fact that a shorter one was created to stick in there to help the longer one is some evidence all in itself is what that means. He goes on to say, for no one doubts that this shorter conclusion is a spurious invention of the scribes, but it would not have been invented except to fill the blank. So in summary of all this, the external evidence at the very least cast this note of suspicion on these verses. Let's talk about the internal evidence. The external evidence divided at some level. It's generally accepted by many good conservative Bible scholars that the suspicion thrown on these verses is real, suspicion by the external evidence. But these good conservative Bible scholars also, many of them, are in agree that the suspicion that's there because of the external evidence is strongly confirmed then by the internal evidence. So let me give you some examples of internal evidence. Argument based upon vocabulary. If you evaluate the Greek, which I know we can't all do that, but if you did, evaluate the Greek text of verses nine through 20, you would find that if you pull out just the these and the articles and some connectives or proper names that are in there, if you pull them out, there are about 75 then Greek words that make up this ending. So nine through 20 is approximately 75 significant Greek words if you take out the conjunctions and the proper names and the these. Of those 75, 15 of them do not appear anywhere else in the Gospel of Mark. And since a few of those 15 actually occur more than once, a couple of them, there's actually then 18 out of the 75 you don't find anywhere else in the Gospel of Mark. There are also 11 that are used in a very different sense than how Mark's been using them. So if you add that together, what that is, as a conclusion, it means that slightly over one-third of the words in verses 9-20, one-third of the vocabulary is considered to be non-Markan. Not Mark's use. A third of it. If you look at verse 1-8, just by contrast, which we know Mark wrote, In those verses, 8 verses, so there's 12 after it but 8 before. In those 8, there's only 4 that he's using, that he hasn't used before. 4 out of 8 verses 29 is what it adds up to be out of 12. That's a lot. And in addition to the non-Markan words, there are peculiar phrases that are non-Markan. Phrases that are found as well. Phrases that are found in Luke, phrases that are found in John, in Acts, in Romans, in 1 Corinthians, but nowhere in Mark. Something else interesting related to the vocabulary is this. There is a very common Greek word that's used a lot in Greek, like we have our common English words. There's a common Greek word for the word went. It's found three times in the longer ending. But what's interesting about it is, it's a very, very common word. Mark didn't use it at all in the rest of his writings. This very common word for went, even though, as we've studied Mark, there were plenty of opportunities to use this common word for the word went, but that was not his choice. And suddenly, out of nowhere, in the last 12 verses, it appears. The marked difference in vocabulary between 9 and 20 and the rest of Mark do make it difficult to believe that both came from the same author. Argument based upon style, a little bit different than vocabulary. I believe this is even a stronger argument than the vocab argument, that the style of writing points to a different author than Mark. First of all, the connection between verse 8 and verse 9 is very awkward, especially in the Greek. In the Greek, the verse 9 begins with a masculine term. It's a masculine participle that actually demands to have an antecedent that's masculine. And that antecedent that it needs is the name Jesus. But the subject of verse 8, right before it, is not Jesus. It's the women. Feminine language. So you would expect this new section, then after inserting that verse eight about the women with language that's feminine and gender, you would expect now this section, a whole new section beginning with the word now and so forth, you would expect from a writing standpoint that they would say something like this, not now after he had risen early, but the writer would say now after Jesus had risen early on the first day, then he. So you've got the antecedent for the he's, but you don't have that here. That's very unusual. grammatically and style-wise. In fact, you have to go all the way back to verse 6 to find the mention of Jesus' name. And in fact, in verses 9 through 11, there's a lot of he's. Jesus' name never even occurs at all. Jesus' name doesn't even occur until all the way down to verse 19. So all these wonderful things that are being spoken about, the one whom they're spoken about is finally grammatically revealed. In verse nine, something else unusual and awkward about this verse in style, Mary Magdalene is mentioned and an explanatory note is given. She is the one, the Mary, that had seven demons cast out of her. That is inserted as an explanatory note as if she has never been mentioned before, so you'll know who she is. She has already been mentioned, though, three times. Chapter 15, verse 40, verse 47 of chapter 15, and verse one of chapter 16. It's considered very unusual, stylistically, that there's all of a sudden an explanatory note for you to understand who she is. Something else, in the first eight verses, verses definitely written by Mark. You just need to know this from a style standpoint. It's a little bit of grammar as well. The conjunction and, which is the Greek word kai, K-A-I, that is used to start at the beginning of a sentence or a clause, it's not always translated in English. In fact, many times it's not. It's a signal in Greek, kai. It occurs in the first eight verses about once per verse. When you get to the last 12 verses, it suddenly is, it's hidden sometimes, you don't see it in the English text, but suddenly it is only once every two to three verses. And yet that has been a style of Mark all leading up to this point, and suddenly it stopped. Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the graphic style of Mark. As we've been going through Mark, it's very graphic, it's very colorful, This last section is considered something very different from that. It's not graphic and colorful. It's a prosaic style that's summarizing some things. There are some biblical scholars named Bratcher and Nida, and I'll quote them a couple of times tonight. They put it this way, listen. The narrative in 9 through 20 is concise and barren, lacking the vivid and lifelike details so characteristic of Mark and historical narrative. Because of these issues of style, even one of the staunch supporters of the idea that 9 through 20 do belong to Mark, a man named Stonehouse, on this he admits the style of 9 through 20 is very different than 1 through 8. Argument based on content, and I believe this is the most significant issue. I'll give you several examples of some issues related to content. In verses 1 to 8, The angel told the woman to go tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus, risen from the dead, was going to meet them somewhere. We talked about that. There was going to be an arranged meeting in Galilee. Mark points that out very specifically. So if Mark was going to continue writing about appearances of Jesus, it would be natural to expect that He's going to mention this meeting in Galilee. And verses 9-20 never mention that by name. There are some appearances, but it's never in their summaries, it's never said where they occur. And on that note, this is what many scholars would conclude. Verses 9-20. is a summary of various other passages of Scripture. Passages we find in Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and 1st Corinthians. That's why some of the language is found in those other books. It's best to see verses 9 through 11, for example. 9 through 11 is someone's summary of John chapter 20, verses 11 to 18. It's his summary of something from John chapter 20. Verses 12 to 13 are a summary of a very lengthy section of Luke. A lot of verses in Luke. Luke 24, verses 13, all the way to 35. This author summarized that long section of Luke in verses 12 and 13, even though there's some inconsistencies between the two. Verses 14 to 18 are a summary of Matthew 28, 16 to 20. In fact, verse 15 is roughly parallel to what we call the Great Commission that's found in Matthew 18, verse 19. Verses 19 through 20 deal with the Ascension. Now that is a very important doctrine, no doubt about it. It is a doctrine that was cherished by the Apostolic Church, and that's proven by the many references to the Ascension in Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation. So this is being summarized by this unknown writer, that cherished doctrine of the Ascension and the session of Christ, seated at the right hand of God, verses 19 through 20. But, verse 20, says something that's not found in any of the other Gospels. And thus it sounds more like a summary statement from the book of Acts, of the Acts of the Apostles, verse 20. And maybe a summary of some things even from Paul's writings. In fact, if you look at verse 20, there are three terms there that I want to call your attention to. In the translation I'm using, it's the term, them, the word confirmed, and the word followed. Those three terms, worked with them, confirmed, and follow. Those are three of the terms that I referred to earlier that are not found anywhere else in Mark. They are found in Paul's writings. And so it's very, very possible some of the summary of 19 and 20 even came from some of Paul's writings. Now that's just a taste of some of the content issues, but I want to go back to 9 through 20. I want to drill down a little bit deeper on two content issues especially. That verse 14, rebuke by Jesus of the Apostles, that actually is a very, in the grammar, is a particularly severe rebuke. In fact, that rebuke is more severe than any other rebuke that Jesus gives the disciples anywhere else in the Gospels, all four Gospels, that verse. And many have agreed that rebuke seems out of place after the resurrection. The disciples are getting over their shock and they're starting to be filled with joy. And neither of the words used there, the terms for unbelief in verse 14 and the term for hardness of heart is ever used by Jesus of his disciples anywhere else, ever. But there's an even bigger one for me and probably for some of you. It's the content of verses 17 and 18. Very interesting verses. Verses 17 and 18. I think are the most significant dilemma from a content standpoint. And those two verses have given rise to much grief, much misunderstanding, and I would say even pain and death. Jesus here is represented as having promised five signs that would accompany those who believed. Not just the apostles, it says, mind you, but all those who believed. Five signs, the power to expel demons, the ability to speak in new languages, the ability to speak up venomous snakes without being physically harmed, the gift of being able to drink deadly poison without being hurt, and the power to place hands on the sick who will then recover. Those five signs. Now there is no special difficulty dealing with at least two of them, maybe even three, especially the two about expelling demons and healing the sick. Jesus did impart such gift to his disciples. And they did make good use of them. You see that in Matthew 10, Mark 9, Luke 10, several chapters in Acts. But what is interesting about that, here it says, by laying on of hands. It's also true that no laying on hands is mentioned anywhere else in the Gospels when it came to healing somebody. It's never mentioned as something the apostles did when they healed someone. What is mentioned, I think it's Mark chapter six, there is a mention at least once of anointing someone with oil, so what they did do is not mentioned here, and what they did not do anywhere else is mentioned here. So this mention of laying on of hands does seem to be borrowed from other passages, particularly from Acts chapter 28 verse eight, where you do have this incident of Paul laying hands on somebody, A man named Publius, his sick father, Paul laid hands on him. But nevertheless, at least there are occurrences of casting out demons and healing people. As far as speaking new languages, which that's what this is referring to, it's not gibberish. We know that from scripture. We've studied that before here on Wednesday nights. that the gift of tongues in the New Testament is not a private prayer language, it's not gibberish, anything like that. Anything that goes on in those categories today has nothing to do with the biblical definition of speaking in tongues. It's speaking new languages, known languages. As far as that's concerned, What's interesting about that is the gift is not mentioned anywhere else in the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, except this one verse, that gift of tongues. It certainly did, though, take place. We see it in Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 19, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. We studied here on Wednesday night, discussed the use and abuse of this gift. The point tonight, though, is not about the validity of those three gifts today, which I understand is an issue. It's still an issue whether those gifts still operate today. So instead of seeking to make the case here tonight about that, I'm simply gonna say this, they are not for today. And I've already taught on that here. Let me give you some quotes in connection with these three gifts. Once again, B.B. Warfield, very respected theologian, he states this, these gifts were part of the credentials of the apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. They necessarily passed away with it. Early church fathers, Chrysostom, Augustine, both taught that the gifts had ceased by their day. Jonathan Edwards said this, these extra gifts were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of scripture has been completed and the church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased. And as well, that is the view of many other respected theologians throughout church history, Matthew Henry, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, Abraham Kuyper, and so on. And that is the position of our church. But the primary problem to address is that this ending mentions those two other signs, handling serpents and drinking poison, right? I mean, that's what the rub is for most people. Those who accept the ending as fully inspired and infallible scripture do have to do something with those two. In fact, I'll tell you, they work hard to find those two fulfilled elsewhere in scripture. And they say they find confirmation in two verses, Luke 10, verse 19, and Acts 28, verse 3. Luke 10, 19, Jesus tells his disciples something about treading on serpents and they'll be protected. That's not the same thing. I mean, even if you don't like snakes, I think you would agree that treading on one and picking up and handling one are not the same. And that's true. Treading on serpents, not picking them up deliberately. In Acts 28 verse 3, both those verses I gave you have some sort of, they say, confirmation on the serpent side of things, not the poison side. Acts 28 verse 3 is where Paul picked up a bunch of sticks, and after he placed them on the fire, as we know that narrative, a snake came out, fastened itself on his hand, he shook it off without any physical harm to himself. That's not what this is talking about. Paul did not deliberately pick up a venomous snake and make a video of it and put it on YouTube. That's the two confirmations in the Bible that they try to find for the promise here of safety dealing with serpents. What about drinking deadly poisons without harm? Even a couple of staunch supporters of the ending, including Linsky, are forced to confess that the New Testament offers no example of this whatsoever. Bratcher and Nida again. The bizarre promise of immunity from snakes and poisonous drinks is completely out of character with the person of Christ as revealed in the Gospel of Mark. The other Gospels and in the whole of the New Testament as well. Nowhere did Jesus exempt himself or his followers from the natural laws which govern this life, nor did he ever intimate that such exemptions would be given to those who believe in him. So what's going on today, especially in the Appalachian mountain areas, is not biblical. Yet ever so often, there is a report or a video, something on the news, something in the paper, a story of incidents of religious fanatics picking up venomous snakes and handling them or drinking deadly poisons frequently with sad results. And those who try to do this frequently seek to justify their strange behavior by appealing to this verse. I do like this quote from Ernest Thompson. Modern cultists who handle rattlesnakes and copperheads thinking that the scripture has promised them immunity are badly mistaken. I think that's a good way to say it. They're just badly mistaken. So back to the two main positions. The main point of all this is simple. Position number one, that Mark wrote this disputed section, is just not a reasonable position. That means that the best view is position two, that Mark did not write this section. Warfield has a quote again, the combined force of external and internal evidence excludes this section from a place in Mark's gospel quite independently of the ability to account for the unfinished look of verse eight and so forth. It's enough all by itself even if you didn't have an answer for why Mark ended his gospel so abruptly. So I don't believe it's part of the word of God at all. It was added. It's not inspired scripture. But I said there's two branches there. Which is the best view of the two branches? Did Mark intend to end his gospel at verse eight? Or did he not intend to end it and either meant to finish it differently and just never did for whatever reason? Maybe he fell ill. Maybe he later did finish it and we don't have it. It's missing. Let's talk about the branch first that says that Mark did not intend to end at verse 8. If that is true, that he didn't intend to end at verse 8, then he was either interrupted in some way and he couldn't finish it. Like I said, he got sick or possibly died before completing it. Which would mean that for some reason, God allowed his word to remain unfinished. And that's a hard one for me personally to swallow. almost as hard as the poison. Or some believe Mark did complete it. It was not his intention to end at verse 8. He actually did complete it, and the correct ending section was lost very early on. The problem with this is the form of the early manuscripts. They weren't notebooks in loose leaf. They were in scroll form. What does that mean about a scroll? Which is the most protected section of the writing? The last. It's down in the middle. It's the least likely to be lost. So that doesn't make a lot of sense. Plus, if the section that he wrote to go with this was accidentally lost, it must have happened very, very early. Otherwise, the lost ending would have been recovered from other copies. But it's not in those other copies that we have. Even the early interest in Mark's gospel, this is the earliest written gospel, there's a lot of interest in it. The early interest in this gospel makes it highly improbable that only one mutilated copy survived. Frankly, that view depends on a lot of speculation and there's no hint at all in the early records of the church that any of this is actually what happened. The other branch a position too, that Mark intended to conclude his gospel with the words of verse 8. What about that? Is that really a tenable position? Is it possible? Some who oppose the idea say that verse 8 is just too abrupt. And it's sort of a pessimistic ending. It ends on a note of gloom. They would also point to that problem earlier that I mentioned about Galilee. They would expect Mark to write some more. We believe we've lost it because we expect him to write some more about Jesus' meeting with Galilee. It just doesn't make sense. Well, I'm concluding with a summary of the right view tonight. It is very reasonable to believe that verse 8 is the intended ending of Mark's gospel. Very reasonable. And here's why. Number one, the ending at verse eight is not too abrupt. Go back to verse one of chapter one. Mark chapter one, verse one. Here's how he begins his writing. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Now you tell me, does that sound like an abrupt beginning? I mean, where's the genealogy? Where's the information about Jesus' conception? Where's the wonderful story of his birth and the angels and Herod and all that? What about references to his childhood? The point is that it should not be surprising that Mark doesn't complete the story at the end, so to speak, after the resurrection, since he didn't complete the story even at the very beginning of the book. His gospel both begins and ends in a similar style. Also, even if this ending is considered to be too abrupt by people, once again, it's the abruptness that best accounts for the confusion that exists concerning the ending. It's the so-called abruptness, the initial impression of incompleteness that explains the origin of the shorter and the larger endings. Scribal attempts to try to, this doesn't make sense to me, this seems like there ought to be more. So they provided what they thought would be acceptable conclusions. It is the abrupt nature of a book ending like that that would prompt all that. It also explains the widespread phenomenon of the manuscripts that do terminate with verse eight. I said, now, because of all the copies through the centuries, most of the copies do have this last section. But the early copies, there were many of them in those first few hundred years. It's a lot easier to explain why something was added like this to deal with the abruptness than it is to try to explain why so many of those early copies, all this extra ending didn't exist. So the ending is not abrupt. And second and last, not only is it not abrupt, the ending is very strategic. Mark had some reasons for ending it this way. He wanted to convey something to his readers in Rome. that the disciples, first of all, the disciples, even despite everything Jesus had told them, they did not expect the resurrection. This is not something made up, this resurrection. They were shocked. In fact, they were stunned not only by the fact of it, they were stunned by the implications of it. Jesus really was the Son of God. He would be with them forever. They could scarcely take that in. And I don't think Mark could have said that in a better way than verse seven and eight to end with. So this sense of bewilderment that's there, fear, trembling, is not surprising or out of place as many have thought. In fact, Mark previously recorded similar reactions like that. So go back to Mark chapter one real quick and follow this journey with me. Turn fast, let your fingers do the walking quickly. I just dated myself. Let me show you how many times he did this. When something miraculous took place, Mark 1, verse 22, they were amazed at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority. They were all amazed so that they debated among themselves saying, what is this? A new teaching with authority? He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him. They started off, they were amazed. Mark chapter 2 verse 12. And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and glorifying God, saying, We have never seen anything like this. Jump over to chapter 5, verse 15. Mark 5, 15. They came to Jesus and observed the man who had been demon-possessed, sitting down, clothed, and in his right mind. the very man who had the legion, and they became frightened, filled with wonder, fear. Chapter five, verse 33, but the woman, fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. Jump to verse 42, chapter five, verse 42. Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was 12 years old, and immediately they were completely astounded. Chapter six, verse 51, Then he got into the boat with them, and the wind stopped, and they were utterly astonished." Chapter 9, verse 32. This is the scene of the transfiguration. Chapter 9, verse 32. But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask him. Chapter 9. You know, I don't know what verse it is. It could be verse 6. Yeah, don't know why I did it out of order here, but chapter nine, verse six, this is when Jesus announced his disciples that he was gonna be killed and resurrected. Chapter nine, verse six. For he did not know what to answer, for they became terrified. Now chapter 10, verse 24. Jesus had just said that it's difficult for a rich person to be saved. That shocked him too. Everything shocked him. Mark 10, verse 24. The disciples were amazed at his words. That a rich person can't be saved? Verse 32 of chapter 10, when Jesus was determined to go on to Jerusalem, verse 32 says, they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them, and they were amazed. In other words, that he was so determined to do this, and those who followed were fearful. Chapter 11, verse 18, the chief priests and the scribes heard this and began seeking how to destroy him, for they were afraid of him, for the whole crowd was astonished. at his teaching. Mark 12, verse 17. And Jesus said to them, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar and to God the things that are God's. And they were amazed at him. People are still amazed at that one today. Taxes. We're supposed to pay them? We have fear and tribbling and astoundment and fear and all that. Mark chapter 15, verse five. 15, five. But Jesus made no further answer, so Pilate was amazed. Chapter 16, verse 5, our chapter, the last chapter. Verse 5, entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right wearing a white robe, and they were amazed. Just so you'll know, in 10 of those instances, Mark used one of the same words that he uses in verse 8 of chapter 16. And in five instances, out of all that I read you, he used a verb that is a cognate of one of the nouns of verse 8. In other words, it's in a noun form in verse 8, but five times he used that noun in the verb form. Fifteen times, using the same language we find in verse 8. In all the other instances, he used synonyms that mean the same thing. My point is, is it really So unusual that Mark would choose to end his gospel this way since this has been the theme he has played all along the way? And the answer is no, not at all. In fact, it seems clear to me that Mark strategically ended his gospel with this clear purpose in mind. He began by saying in verse 1, Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then he included all these reasons to believe that. Look at all that he did. that causes amazement and fear and trembling. What else could you conclude about him besides being the Son of God? And then he ends by showing that a proper response is to be moved the same way with a sense of awe and wonder that the Son of God came and He lived and He rose again. That sense of awe, the point of Mark's Gospel, is the beginning of a new life of fellowship with the Lord, of knowing God through Christ, the risen Lord. I think Mark's readers were very challenged when they read that and stopped right there. Challenged to respond to Christ correctly and challenged to do exactly what the women were told to do, to assume the responsibility now of telling the good news. I think this is important that he ended this way because it actually ends up showing that ultimately the Christian faith does not rest upon signs and miracles, not ultimately. It doesn't even rest upon appearances of the risen Lord. I'm grateful for that. I haven't seen any of those signs. I haven't seen the risen Lord. 1 Corinthians 15 says that about 500 or 600 people, really? I mean, that's a lot on one hand, but it's actually not compared to the population. Only 500 or 600 people ever saw Jesus resurrected. It's unlikely that any of Mark's readers, original readers or hearers, were among those 500 or 600, just like it's true for us. You see, the good news must ultimately be accepted by faith. So the message of Mark's gospel is to believe, to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God and to be in awe of Him and awe that results in a life that's lived for Him. I personally love the ending of Mark. So what should we think then of verses 9 through 20? Well, like I said, it's not found in the oldest reliable manuscripts. It is a summary of a lot of things. It does give us an interesting non-inspired summary of some of the appearances and a few other apocryphal ideas and a note of his ascension. It's instructive in that sense. It lets us know what was in the minds of some early church people. But we should only trust What is found in these verses only as far as what you find agrees with what is found elsewhere in Scripture. Don't trust anything in those verses unless it is found elsewhere in Scripture. Anything found in that ending is binding for faith and practice only to the extent in which it's supported elsewhere in Scripture. Every word of that ending cannot be defended as being without flaw. No sermon, no doctrine, no practice should be based solely upon the contents of the longer ending. So I trust that the actual closing verses of Mark's gospel leave you with fundamental questions about Jesus and your relationship to him. If it does, that's exactly what Mark intended. Let's pray. Father, we understand there's been a lot of words on my part in a short amount of time, talking fast and things that some elements of which we won't remember, but I pray we will take this to heart. What Mark's intention was in this book, this great gospel that we have finished, that his intention for his readers and by the Spirit for us today is that we would end up amazed, astonished, and in awe and wonder and in worship of Jesus who truly is divine, truly is the Son of God. We thank you that he is alive today as the risen Lord. In our Savior's name, amen.