#882: Mark 15-16 | Why Mark 16:9-20? How to respond | Psalm 81

Use your favorite podcast app: Apple | Google | Spotify | Breaker | Stitcher | iHeart | RSS
Sharing is caring: Twitter | Instagram | #ForTheHope
Original airdate: Thursday, September 12, 2019

*** SHOW NOTES (not a transcript) ***

Lead:

Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in the Bible? If someone asks, how do you respond?

Intro:

What about the snake handling and poison drinking in the last chapter of Mark? Glad you asked!

If you use any contemporary Bible, you’ll see a note that Mark 16:9-20 probably wasn’t part of what Mark originally wrote. So if someone brings that up — particularly if they use it as a reason to say you can’t really trust the Bible.

Today we finish up the book of Mark. We’ve seen Jesus tried in a kangaroo court. Today we hear the rest of the story about the crucifixion and resurrection (and you’ll probably hear me get choked up again), and I’ll be sure to verbally set apart the odd ending of Mark so you can keep an ear out.

Sponsor:

You! (…if you’re using this link to buy the book referenced below. Thank you!)

Bible Reading (modified Bible Project plan):

Passage: Mark 15-16
Translation: NET (New English Translation)
Verses: 67
Words: ~1417

Think & Reflect:

Scholars don’t know if Mark purposefully ended where he did on purpose. We’ve already experienced the fact that his writing sometimes abruptly changes from one topic to another. Others think the original ending was lost.

Short answer:

  • Even if it was not written by Mark, it doesn’t mean that it’s untrue.

    • There are no significant teachings found here that aren’t found elsewhere in Scripture. Note that this means, by definition, that ‘drink poison and not be harmed’ isn’t significant and could be explained as analogical.

  • Just because something may have been added, it is a false argument to say “therefore the whole thing is untrue.”

  • Even if we want to accept that passage as a valid part of the Bible and have arguments for such, NO major doctrine is affected by its inclusion or exclusion.

TWISTED SCRIPTURE: Mark 16:18

In 1910, after reading Mk 16:18, George Went Hensley introduced snake handling to churches throughout the Appalachian region. Although this passage is a part of the ending of Mk that is considered by many not to be original, much of the church for 18 centuries viewed this passage as authoritative. Therefore, if it is interpreted literally, one would expect to hear that early Christians obeyed the directive to “pick up snakes.” No evidence exists that this ever happened, although the Apostle Paul was protected when bitten by a venomous viper (Acts 28:1–6).(1)

HERE’S THE KEY (shouting in all-caps): We always want to be careful about really pounding the table around something mentioned only once in the Bible. I’m not saying that something said once isn’t true, but we should ask, “How does this square with what the whole of the Bible says?”

NOTE: For a long, but detailed, exposition exploring this issue apologetically, visit https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704. This is not an explicit endorsement of everything there, just a source. :)


Wisdom segment:

Passage: Psalm 81
Translation: NET (New English Translation)
Verses: 16
Words: ~263

Love you!

-R


Roger Courville, CSP is a globally-recognized expert in digitally-extended communication and connection, an award-winning speaker, award-winning author, and a passionately bad guitarist. Follow him on Twitter -- @RogerCourville and @JoinForTheHope – or his blog: www.forthehope.org


Sources and resources:

(1) Ted Cabal et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007), 1504. (Thank you for supporting our ministry by using this link if you buy this book.)