____________________________________________________ THE GOSPEL OBSERVER "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). ____________________________________________________ October 20, 1991 ____________________________________________________ Is Mark 16:9-20 Uninspired? by Tom Edwards In a letter I received from one whom I have been corresponding with concerning the need to be baptized as part of God's plan for saving man, he made the following remark: Contextually, I am forced to agree with you on this passage (Mark 16:16, TTE). If it's one thing you were right on about and that this passage does in fact link baptism with salvation and there is simply no other way this passage can be defined! For all intents and purposes, you're right!! However, there are some questions on exactly who the author is of Mark 16:9-20. Most modern day translations will have a footnote saying something like: ``The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20'' (taken from the New International Version). This passage can not be quoted in defense of baptism saving because its author was a well-meaning scribe who was very poor in his theology and who borrowed from the book of Matthew and a little from Luke and John. If you wish to use this passage in future arguments you had better be ready to answer the theological fallacies of Mark 16:12 (which states that Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared in ``a different form.'' That's a lie, Jesus did not appear in a different form) and Mark 16:18 (which states that those who believe will be able to ``drink poison and it will not hurt them'' and will ``pick up snakes with their hands'' and not be hurt. There are many people who died of poison and snake bites quoting this passage). So the argument now becomes moot. To begin with, I don't have a problem with Mark 16:9-20; I accept it as factual and in harmony with the rest of the New Testament. Using the argument that Jesus ``appeared in a different form'' as being an evidence that supposedly discredits the truthfulness of this passage is a mishandling of scripture. The exact wording of Mark 16:12 states: ``And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country.'' Luke's parallel account shows that these two were on their way to the village of Emmaus when they encountered the Lord. ``But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him'' (Luke 24:12). After having conversed with Jesus, verse 30 informs that ``their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.'' Obviously, the Lord had ``appeared in a different form'' to these two people, prior to their eyes being ``opened''; and it was either because of a change that had taken place with their viewing or with the Lord's physique that had caused their not recognizing Him -- and either of these possibilities would be in harmony with Mark 16:12. If it were with their eyes, though, would they then not have also seen each other as being different -- and not just the Lord? Then again, it could have possibly been the image of Jesus within their brains that had been changed in appearance and, therefore, registered differently to them. Or, maybe, all remembrances of the way Jesus looked had been miraculous removed from their brains, temporarily. Though, we might not know how this hindrance of recognizing actually occurred, we do know that it resulted in their seeing Jesus ``in a different form'' and, therefore, not knowing who He was. But even if the change had occurred on the part of the Lord instead of the vision of these two, why should that be such a strange thing? And how could this discredit the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20? We must remember that the Lord was a miracle worker. The Bible shows that when the despondent apostles were in the upper room after the Lord's death, Jesus suddenly appeared in the midst of them -- the doors having been shut (John 20:19). I tend to believe that the Lord must have taken on a different form as He was somehow miraculously transported from outside to inside this building. Surely, His physical body would not have been able to merely walk through the walls without it undergoing some type of transformation. Luke's parallel account of John 20:19 shows that as the apostles were speaking among themselves, ``He Himself stood in their midst'' (Luke 24:36). Since we know the doors had been previously shut, how could the Lord have gotten into their midst without first being noticed coming through the door (if this is how He entered). The context in Luke indicates such an instantaneous appearing that ``they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit'' (v. 37). Thomas had not been present at this appearing, but one week later the Lord returned with a similar entrance: ``And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst, and said,' ``Peace be with you''' (John 20:26). Why would there be this phrase ``the doors having been shut'' unless it is to signify the miraculous entrance of the Lord without having to even open the doors. This was just another spectacular feat of the Man who could walk on water, raise the dead, give eyesight to the blind, make the lame to walk, and perform countless other healings and miracles. Again, however, it would seem that there must have been some type of change that temporarily characterized the Lord when He ``vanished from their sight.'' And concerning physical changes with Jesus, what about at the Mount of Transfiguration when the Lord's ``face shone as the sun, and His garments became as white as light'' (Matt. 17:2). In view of these thoughts, I think one is being unwise to call Mark 16:12 a lie. Christ worked numerous miracles while on earth, and many of them aren't even recorded (John 21:25). How can we say that the Lord never worked any miracles on Himself which caused Him to change His appearance from time to time that might have also enabled Him to slip through crowds incognito. It is obvious that the Lord did not want to be recognized at first by those two travelers on the road to Emmaus. And concerning my correspondent's other comment, the fact that many people sometimes drink poison or pick up deadly snakes while quoting Mark 16:18 -- as if to show their faith -- but are then killed as a result is not an evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is not true. It merely points to one possible conclusion: these particular powers are not for today. Someone might say, ``Well, maybe they just weren't really Christians'' as another likely conclusion; but this could not be possible in the light of God's word. These miracles were to be temporary, along with the spiritual gifts in the early church; and, therefore, whether one is a Christian today or not is irrelevant -- for the gifts have ceased. Mark 16:9-20 is not without fulfillment, however. The apostle Paul had been bit by a viper, and it did not harm him (Acts 28:3-6). The casting out of demons, speaking in tongues, and the healing of the sick was all part of the miraculous events that occurred in the early church; and we see that these things really did happen (book of Acts). These were to be ``signs'' that would help substantiate the validity of the word of God. As I examine Mark 16:9-20 in the light of the rest of the Scriptures, it is found to be in harmony and not contradicting any of the other passages. If you believe it does, though, what are these incongruities? Even without Mark 16:9-20, we learn of the need to be baptized from other passages in the New Testament. Why is it, though, that some people can accept the grammatical construction of Mark 16:16 that one must ``believe and be baptized'' (even if they don't believe in the passage's authenticity), but cannot apply this same grammatical principle to Acts 2:38: ``repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins''? As we consider these thoughts this day, isn't it obvious that Mark 16:9-20 is just as harmonious to the Scriptures as any other Bible truth. May we each continue to study this divine word so that we can sharpen our vision and see Jesus as He really is -- in the right form. ___________________________________________ Gargantuan or Lilliputian? by Tom Edwards The atheist might rationalize that our earth is so small compared to the universe, and we ourselves are so infinitesimal that why would we not be made much larger if there were a God? The question of being larger, however, is very relative. Actually, anything--regardless of its enormous mass--is incredibly small when contrasted with infinity. The size of the average vertebrate species can be likened to that of a cat. Man, therefore, is many times this size. And in contrast to microscopic organisms, man is millions of times larger. If man, the earth, and all other objects, including every element of this entire universe were each increased in size 800 million billion trillion times, who would notice the difference? Don't ever think that just because we might appear as but a seemingly speck in the universe that we are too insignificant to be loved by an Almighty God. And isn't it better to live in a universe with so many things incredibly larger than man--rather than man being able to hold the known universe in the palm of his hand? Remember, even the largest star or broadest galaxy would have to say, "I am but nothing in contrast to God's infinity." ________________________________________ Tri-State CHURCH OF CHRIST 713 13th Street, Ashland, Kentucky 41101 Sunday: 10:00 A.M. Bible class 10:50 A.M. Worship 6:30 P.M. Worship Wednesday: 7:30 P.M. Bible study evangelist/editor: Tom Edwards (606) 325-9742 e-mail: tedwards@zoomnet.net Gospel Observer web site: http://www.zoomnet.net/~tedwards/go ________________________________________