Last week I explained my view that the Gospel of Mark’s “Longer Ending” (LE), Mark 16:9-20, probably doesn’t belong in the Gospel. Which leads to the question: how and even whether pastors should preach on it.

A few points to reiterate before digging into that question:

• First: from the pulpit and in the church, only the Word of God should be preached and taught. No other voice but Christ’s should be brought before His sheep in His church.
• Second: a key point of hermeneutics – the rules of Bible interpretation – is that “Scripture is always the best interpreter of Scripture.” A theologically solid point or principle is more than likely to be mentioned more than once in the Bible. Yet a handful of the more unusual passages mentioned in last week’s blog are not mentioned in other places. Seeking to proof-text and build an entire theological system around “once-only” verse that may not even be authentic, inspired Scripture is not the Sola Scriptura way. 
• Third, and following from the first two: do not treat one’s conviction on the LE as a test of Gospel orthodoxy. One of my regular habits is to watch theological debates during lunch (I know: weird!) In some debates on this topic in particular, people get mad, and I mean mad! Not to mention condescending, acting as if their opponents are not even a Christians when they are actually the ones acting un-Christlike. It’s not just distasteful, it overemphasizes a doctrinal point that, at best, should not be “higher order.” 

So now to the main event: how should Biblically faithful preachers and study leaders handle the LE? As best as I can tell, there are three possible approaches:  ignore it; teach through Mark 16 as one full unit or sermon/lesson; or teach through the seemingly orthodox portions of Mark 16:9-20 alongside clearly Scriptural passages from other Gospels.  

My experience in life is that ignoring something – in this case, preaching through the text and saying nothing about the controversy – normally does not work for long. It’s like someone ignoring signs of cancer or heart trouble: asking for trouble. Even if one views Mark 16:9-20 as authentic text, it’s wise to address the topic at least briefly so as not to seem to be dodging it. 

The second approach – choosing, as one who doesn’t believe the text is authentic, nevertheless to present seemingly orthodox sections alongside other Great Commission passages in the Gospels – is a possibility, but probably not best. Depending on the maturity and Scriptural awareness of the congregation, a pastor could sow some significant confusion.

The final approach, and the one I am choosing, is to teach Mark 16 as one sermon. I will briefly mention the fact that the LE of Mark is not believed to be authentic text and deal with the theological ramifications of the less than orthodox statements. Even if we’re not preaching to scholars on the Lord’s Day, members should at least know that their pastor has a conviction and position on the topic. 

At the end of every book series, I like to evaluate where I think we are as a church and see the ways we have grown. While I haven’t yet fully begun that evaluation, Flat Run Church’s journey through the Gospel of Mark has been so healthy for me personally, and our members appear to have been encouraged by it. So, while this conversation may seem rather “ivory tower” on the surface, it is inspired by practical considerations: I don’t want to risk the spiritual growth this series has brought me and our church with the wrong approach to handling the LE controversy. 

That being said, Friend, if you make it to the end of this two-part and wonder, "oh my, how many passages are like this in the NT?" you will be glad to know, it is a very, VERY, small number. God, through providential means, has preserved his Word for us today. 

When we hold the Bible, we hold the Word of God. Let us believe it, trust it, and live it for the honor – and glory – of Christ. 

Or in other words: Soli Deo Gloria!