When this blog is posted, I will have one more sermon left in a nearly year-and-a half sermon series on the Gospel of Mark, the 20th book of the Bible I have taught through. I feel so grateful to God for allowing me to preach His Word. 

While scholars believe Mark was the first Gospel written, the testimony of the early church was that Matthew preceded it. Papias, a church father and disciple of the Apostle John and Polycarp, calls Mark the “interpreter of Peter,” implying the Gospel consists of Peter’s sermons recorded by his secretary, John Mark. 

As Mark wrote to a Roman audience suffering intense persecution, the Gospel is distinctive in its almost breathless, straightforward pace. While most of Mark is straightforward, there is one section that is highly controversial. As a matter of fact, the controversy I am speaking of goes all the way back to the early days of the church. This is the controversy we will deal with in the next two blogs and it is whether or not Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending of Mark.

Which leads me to focus on two aspects of this controversy: what the controversy is about, and how preachers should handle such a topic. And to warn you that this blog is really me thinking out loud on the best way to handle this topic in ending our series, although I hope this analysis does benefit you.

Let’s look at the controversy. While most people will be content to follow Study Bible notes or their pastor’s lead, a good book on this topic is Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, edited by David Alan Black. Black’s book is on the technical side as it dives into church history, textual criticism, and internal evidence from the Greek manuscripts. (There’s also the debate between James R. White and Jeffrey Riddle on YouTube, again rather technical in nature.) 

Black’s volume analyzes the controversy from three angles: internal evidence; external evidence; and the theology of the longer ending of Mark. 

I tend to agree with book contributor Dan Wallace that the longer ending, or LE, of Mark is not authentic text and was likely added by a scribe. But since space doesn’t permit a detailed tit-for-tat, point-by-point, blow-for-blow analysis, I will briefly explain my view of the three perspectives without giving the other side. 

The internal evidence deals primarily with the Greek writing style, vocabulary, and flow of Mark’s Gospel. Much like a person’s voice is distinctive, each Gospel author has a defined style that is easily discernible upon evaluation. 

I am no Greek scholar, as I am sure my Greek prof would attest! However, even a novice can see the similarities of style and grammar in John’s writings and discern they are his, even in English. Luke, too, writes as one would expect from an educated doctor. Yet Wallace expounds in regard to the LE, “There is not a single passage in Mark 1:1-16:8 comparable to the stylistic, grammatical, and lexical anomalies in 16:9-20.” 

The external evidence relates to the ancient manuscripts accessible in the era of the Church Fathers or “Patristics.” This era is marked as the early days following the time of the apostles roughly between the 2nd and 7th or 8th centuries AD. The manuscripts that these church leaders had were more ancient than what we have today. 

The development of the New Testament as we have it today is a wonderful, faith-strengthening story of God’s providential work through His church. The NT did not magically fall out of the sky, nor would it have even been compiled in one volume during the days of the apostles. Rather, during the Patristic era, the church gradually recognized the authentic books that would ultimately become the NT “canon.”  

The evidence detailed in Black’s volume demonstrates that since some Church Fathers had access to the LE and some did not, the LE argument cannot be squarely settled merely on that basis. Rather, Wallace asserts that Jerome – who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible used exclusively by the church for nearly a millennium – included the LE largely out of fear of being accused of tampering with the Word of God. Moreover, while the majority of earlier manuscripts included the LE, they are younger and older manuscripts carrying a heavier evidentiary weight do not contain it.

Finally, troubling theological issues arise with the LE.  The reference in 16:12 to Jesus’s appearance in “another form” to the disciples could very well be interpreted to question the eternally unchanging person and nature of Christ. 16:16 implies one must be baptized in order to be a Christian. 16:17 says that all who believe will cast out demons and speak in tongues, and 16:18 that Christ-followers will drink poison and carry snakes – both points that fringe groups of the charismatic movement seize upon in their radical insistence that such supernatural events are normative fruits of true saving faith. Now I am from North Carolina, but not that part, OK? (One wonders why such churches have “snake-handling” services to demonstrate their faith in Christ but not poison-drinking services.) 

The fact that such theological “smokescreens” arise from Mark 16:9-20 should at least cause us to pause and ask whether this passage indeed really belongs in the Gospel. At the very least, doctrinal claims should not be based on such questionable passages, especially in making them a basic test of faithfulness to Jesus. 

Given these difficulties, what should Bible-believing churches do with the LE? Stay tuned to this same bat-time, same bat-channel next week for my thoughts on that question.

In the meantime: Soli Deo Gloria!