Mark 16

CHAPTER XVI

After the two parts (chapters 14 and 15) that present the Passion and the death there follows the last minor section of the Gospel, that regarding the resurrection. In each of the four Gospels this last section regarding the resurrection constitutes the glory part. Yet this tale is told in the same sober way as is the account of the crucifixion and the death. The great facts that occurred are reported to us in the briefest and the most dispassionate way. Our faith is to rest on these facts, that is all. One of the decisive tests of the Christian faith is belief in these facts which declare that Jesus rose from the dead. All who alter these facts and in some way or other deny his resurrection can no longer claim the Christian name, for Christianity stands and falls with the resurrection of the Savior.

The four accounts differ in detail, no witness reports all the facts. This affords the critics an opportunity to play one witness against another in order to discredit all of them or to discredit any desired part of their testimony. The Christian student has only one duty, namely, properly to combine all the testimony and thus to reconstruct the entire story. The statement that this can never be done is unwarranted.

Mark 16:1

1 And the Sabbath having passed, Mary the Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome bought spices in order that, having gone, they might anoint him.

The reference to the Sabbath’s having passed contains an implication: the women intended to do a piece of work, namely to finish the burial of the body. They could not do all that they desired on Friday, for the time remaining until sunset and the beginning of the Sabbath was far too short for this. They had used only the linen and the powdered spices that Joseph and Nicodemus had brought. In order to do more they had to wait until this day, on which no work could be done, was past.

Matthew mentions only two women; Mark has three, the same ones that were named in 15:40; Luke adds Joanna, the wife of Chuza, one of Herod’s stewards (Luke 8:3) and refers also to others who are not named. The names of only the most prominent are preserved. We do not know how many women there were, we know only that none of the men went with them. The second Mary is named with reference to both of her sons in 15:40, with reference to the second in 15:47, and now with reference to the first.

The spices were bought on Saturday after sunset, when the Sabbath was past and the bazars opened for a few hours. It was impossible to go out to the tomb so late, so everything was prepared in order to go as early as possible the next morning. The ἀρώματα that were bought by the women were liquids because they wanted to anoint the body with them. Nicodemus had brought no less than a hundred pounds of dry, powdered spices which were strewn between the wrappings. But the body itself had not been treated with perfume-like essences before being wrapped with linen strips. Mary of Bethany had anticipated this contingency and had anointed the body of Jesus beforehand (14:8).

The women are now anxious to make good this deficiency. To anoint the body for its burial in this way was part of the honor bestowed upon it by loving friends like all the other provisions for the burial. The essences bought for this purpose were quite costly as were the fine linen and the powdered spices. Note that this is the last we hear of these aromata. The women took them out to the tomb on Sunday morning but found no need for them. Thank God, they were not needed!

What became of these useless spices? They are lost among the great things which the evangelists report, which are so great that costly essences find no further place in the records.

Mark 16:2

2 And very early on the first with reference to the Sabbath they come to the tomb, the sun having risen.

The translation “on the first day of the week” merely changes the Greek into our English idiom, for σάββατα does not mean “week.” The Jews had no names for the days of the week, so they designated them with reference to the Sabbath; thus μία (supply ἡμέρα) τῶνσαββάτων is “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., following it. Moreover, as they used neuter plurals for the festivals, so they also quite frequently do for the Sabbath, σάββατα meaning one Sabbath. The evangelists agree regarding the earliness. Luke writes “at early dawn”; Matthew “as it began to dawn”; John “when it was yet dark”; Mark, λίανπρωΐ, “very early” or “very much in the morning.” The women started just before dawn, while it was yet dark, but, as Mark adds, when they came to the tomb, the sun had just risen.

Why did they go so early when they had the entire day before them? For the best of reasons even also as all the evangelists record this point. Jesus had been dead since Friday. In that climate dead bodies start to decompose very quickly, wherefore also the dead are buried the same day that they die, or, if it is too late on that day, then on the next. All haste was necessary in the minds of these women, every hour counted if they wanted to find Jesus’ body in a condition still to be handled. That even under these conditions they were determined to anoint it with costly essence speaks volumes for their love and devotion just as does their going alone without a single disciple, without even John.

Mark omits the account of the earthquake and of the fact that the stone was rolled away from the door of the tomb. In this section (v. 1–8) as well as in what follows he is exceedingly brief.

Mark 16:3

3 And they were saying to each other, Who will roll for us the stone from the door of the tomb? And having looked up, they behold that the stone has been rolled back, for it was very great.

The anxiety about the stone’s closing the entrance to the tomb seems not to have occurred to the women until they approached the tomb. This is a fine psychological point which has been noted less by the commentators than by the preachers who have depicted the details of the story. The minds of the women are so taken up with their loving purpose that this obstacle does not occur to them until this late moment. It is a fine touch also in the narrative of Mark, who alone preserves and brings out clearly this feature. The imperfect ἔλεγον describes but intimates that something is to follow regarding this stone. We regard ἀποκυλίσει as volitive and not as merely futuristic; the sense is: “Who will do us this service?” It is pedantic to stress ἐκ and to overlook ἀπό in the verb.

Note R. 596 regarding the indifference of the scribes as to which preposition they use. We should not think that the stone had been rolled into the door and was now to be rolled out of the door.

This λίθος (not πέτρος) has been described fully in 15:46. What the women meant was that the stone should be rolled, like the flat wheel that it was, far enough up in the groove to expose the door of the tomb. In speaking to each other of this stone as they do they imply that they themselves may not be able to move it far enough. Whom will they get to help them? They fear further delay. They perhaps blame themselves for not having thought of the stone before and thus having insisted that some of the men come with them.

The observation is correct that the women seem to know nothing about the Roman guard that had been stationed at the tomb. They do not ask each other whether the captain of this guard will permit them to come near, yea, to enter the tomb. But this is at it should be in the narrative: the women did not know that such a guard had been stationed there. This was an arrangement between the Sanhedrists and Pilate, which became known to the friends of Jesus afterward and not at this time.

Mark 16:4

4 Matthew tells us that an angel rolled the stone away and sat on it. It was not rolled aside in its groove in the regular way so as to be rolled back again to shut the entrance. No, it was hurled out of its groove by some tremendous power, thrown flat upon the ground in front of the tomb, thus making a seat for the angel who waited until the women drew near and then went inside the tomb. This stone was not again to be rolled in front of the entrance. It had been laid flat so that the tomb should stand wide open for all men to see that it was emptied of the body of Jesus, the bodiless wrappings lying undisturbed and flat just as they had been wrapped, mute but mighty evidence of the resurrection, John 20:5–10.

When the women looked up they saw the stone in this condition; note the change of prepositions, not ἀπό in the verb as in v. 3 but ἀπά; not “away from” in the regular way, in the groove, but “back,” rolled violently from the cliffside. To have all this understood properly Mark explains (γάρ) that the stone in question was “very great.” Poorer tombs had small openings and needed smaller stones to close them; but this rich man’s tomb had an opening that was of full height and needed a stone of proportionate size for its closing. Gordon’s Tomb, described in 15:46, agrees perfectly with all that the evangelists say about the stone and the door.

The opening of the tomb by the angel has been misunderstood by some interpreters. When the angel opened the tomb, Jesus had already risen. None of the evangelists describes the resurrection proper; it had no witnesses, it was wholly miraculous. Jesus left the tomb silently. His dead body was suddenly quickened (1 Pet. 3:18), filled with life, and in the same instant passed out of its funeral wrappings and out through the walls of the sealed and guarded tomb invisible to the eyes of men. Then, when the tomb was empty, the angel came and opened the tomb to show that it was indeed empty.

At this coming of the angel and the earthquake he caused the Roman guard fell prostrate and, recovering somewhat, fled. Those paintings which portray the glorious Savior coming out of the opened door of the tomb while the guard falls in dismay at the sight of him are not in accord with the facts of the case. Silently, invisibly, wondrously, gloriously the living body passed through the rock.

This mode of being is described well in Concordia Triglotta, 1004, 100: “The incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures, wherever he pleases; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board or wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like; and much more of the like. This mode he used when he rose from the closed sepulcher, and passed through the closed door, and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper.”

This is now a different tomb and requires a different watchman, not keepers of the dead but an inhabitant from the realms of light and life. The servant appears first, the Master will presently be seen. A new era has begun, heaven and earth are now joined, for Christ, our Savior, has risen. The wall of separation has fallen; God is reconciled to men; the sacrifice of the Son has been accepted by the Father. This is the supreme Easter truth.

Mark 16:5

5 At this place Mark, who more than the others records the emotions, might have reported what the women felt when they saw the tomb open, the mighty stone flat on the ground, and no one near. To write, as some do, of a feeling of relief and joy in the women on finding the difficulty of removing the stone removed is to think of these women as being wholly unable to put two and two together. This idea contradicts John 20:1, 2. The women are aghast at sight of the tomb and the stone. Violent hands must have invaded and ravished the tomb. This alone could explain the fact that the stone had simply been wrested from its entrance and now lay flat on the ground.

With this dreadful conviction Mary Magdalene, not waiting to look into the tomb, runs back to the city to summon help, namely some of the men. As regards the other women Mark narrates: And having gone into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, having had thrown around him a white robe. And they were dumbfounded.

Mark and Matthew speak only of “the angel”; Luke and John tell us that there were two angels, John adds, when he tells of Mary Magdalene’s return, that one sat at the head and one at the feet. This is no discrepancy. The two evangelists who speak of “the angel” intend merely to designate this one as the speaker. Fearing the worst, the women went into the tomb, i.e., into its vestibule; compare the description in 15:46. Luke writes as though they first looked for the body of Jesus and, not finding it, saw the two angels. This means that the angels were at first invisible, which fact thus allowed the women to see that the body of Jesus was really gone. Then the angels became visible in order to speak to the women and to announce the resurrection.

The fact that the angel sat on the right is due to the construction of the tomb. The vestibule was on the left side of the chamber that was intended for the bodies. We have described Gordon’s Tomb (15:46) with its two places where an angel could sit; both would place them to the right of the entering women. It is idle, then, to raise the question whether “at the right” means at the right of the women or at the right of the place where the body had been placed, and then to decide in favor of the latter for sentimental and allegorical reasons because the right is the place of honor and because in Luke 1:11 the angel stood at the right of the altar. The plural ἐντοῖςδεξιοῖς is merely idiomatic R. 408.

The angel is described as a νεανίσκος, a youth or young man. Though the angels are sexless they always appear as youths when they are sent to men. Though they are without bodies they appear in bodily form when they are sent to earth. God condescends to men by the sending of his heavenly messengers. Angels always speak the language of those to whom they are to convey a message. Here, as elsewhere, the clothing of the angel is described. Mark says only: “having had thrown around him a white robe,” but he uses στολή, a magnificent festal robe, Prachtgewand, Talar, such as is worn by priests and noble personages. Luke writes “dazzling apparel”; the white flashed and shone in superearthly light. White befits the purity and the holiness of heaven.

Here in the tomb, the abode of death, the messengers of heaven, the home of life and light eternal, appear. What has become of mold and decay? Death is swallowed up in victory. Resurrection and life have abolished death. These shining angels in the open tomb preach a mighty sermon by their very presence. Here Mark at last registers the emotion of the women: “They were dumbfounded,” the aorist records the fact. Their feeling is easier to imagine than to put into words. Where they had expected to find the dead body, hoping that it had not yet advanced too far in decomposing, they stumble upon angels from heaven. No wonder they were completely overwhelmed.

Mark 16:6

6 But he says to them: Stop being dumbfounded! You are seeking Jesus, the Nazarene, the one that has been crucified. He arose; he is not here. See, the place where they did lay him! But be going, say to his disciples and to Peter, He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see him as he said to you.

Μὴἐκθαμβεῖσθε or, as Matthew words it, Μὴφοβεῖσθεὑμεῖς, is, indeed, a most precious word from the angel’s lips, for behind it there is all the grace that the risen Savior has brought us. The women who sought the body of the crucified Jesus actually had no cause to fear the herald of his resurrection as had the Roman soldiers. In negative commands the present imperative means to stop an action already begun, R. 851, etc.; so we here have, “stop being dumbfounded.” This is no empty command, for the full explanation is at once added as to why there is no reason for fear and amazement. In the first place, the angel informs the women that he knows all about their coming to the tomb: they are seeking the dead body of Jesus whom the angel calls “the Nazarene,” the native of Nazareth as he was commonly designated, and then adds “the one that has been crucified” with its present connotation that they were expecting to find him in the tomb as such. Such a dead body they cannot find here.

Why not? “He arose; he is not here.” In these few simple words all the blessed news is at once poured out. He whom they had left here still and cold is gone, for “he arose,” ἠγέρθη. The aorist passive may be intransitive: “he arose,” without the passive idea “he was raised” (R. 817), although in some connections the passive idea is the one preferred. This is one of the queer uncertainties in the Greek. As a matter of fact, the resurrection is at times ascribed to God: “raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,” Rom. 6:4; 8:11; Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 26:32; again it is ascribed to Jesus himself, 9:31; Luke 18:33, ἀναστήσεται. Both are true even as all the opera ad extra sunt communa.

The Greek uses the aorist (“he did rise”) to express an act that has just happened whereas the English prefers the perfect (“he has risen”), R. 842. The resurrection of Jesus’ body was at the same time its glorification; the women were soon to know this (Matt. 28:9).

“He is not here” is conclusive proof. But this absence of the body must be taken together with the next word: “See, the place where they laid him!” They are to see, not only that the place is empty, but at the same time that all the linen wrappings are in place. They are undisturbed, yet the body has gone out of them in a miraculous manner, and the headcloth is laid by itself just as Peter and John saw all this a little later, this being the clearest kind of evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, John 20:5, etc. Here was actual, ocular proof. Nebe is right when he says that these women, however much they yet lacked, understood the resurrection better than many modern theologians who refuse to believe in the bodily resurrection in spite of the words “he is not here” but imagine that today only Jesus’ spirit continues in blessing. The absence of Jesus’ dead body, this empty tomb, and the necessity for accounting for what became of the dead body, are today the great stumblingblock for all who deny the resurrection of that dead body.

They can resort only to explanations that are contrary to the Scriptures. One ventured to assert that the body was resolved into gas. The more wary manipulate the issue and dodge the real point. They agree only in this that the dead body could not have returned to life and been glorified.

Mark 16:7

7 If Jesus had remained dead, neither these women nor any of the disciples would have had anything further to do after the burial had been completed in the way which the women desired. But now that Jesus is risen, the most blessed task awaits these women, a task that is also to fill the lives of all the disciples. Mark abbreviates the message given to the disciples. Matthew says that they, the women, are to tell the disciples that Jesus is risen. Mark implies this in the angel’s order to go and to declare that he is going before them in Galilee; εἴπατε is the second aorist imperative and is peremptory as such. The angel is not making a request but issuing an order; ὑπάγετε is regularly added to a second imperative without a connective.

It is asked why the Eleven were informed in this way, through the women; why angels did not appear to them, or perhaps Jesus himself. Gerhard has enumerated five reasons: God chooses the weak; overwhelmed most by their sorrow, they are to be first in joy; the presence of the women at the tomb silences the Jewish falsehood that the disciples stole the body; as death came by woman, so salvation and life are to be announced by her; God wanted to reward woman’s active love. But why wander so far afield? The women alone went to the tomb on Sunday morning, the women, none of the men, not even John. Thus they were honored by being made the messengers to the men. If the Eleven had also gone out, the story would have been different. The love of these women receives its fitting reward.

“And to Peter,” which is preserved by Mark alone and is taken from Peter’s own lips by him, deserves special attention. Few attentive readers of what has preceded in this Gospel concerning Peter will agree that Peter is here singled out because he is the first and foremost of the Eleven. If that were the intention of Mark’s record and of the angel’s words, the order should be reversed: “say to Peter and to the disciples.” Peter is mentioned last as though his being a disciple is not definite.

Some have thought that he is mentioned because the Lord intended to appear to him especially (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5); but it is hard to see that the message given to Peter differed in any way from that delivered to the other disciples, and the angel himself states that message. No; Peter is singled out because he denied his Lord on the night of the betrayal. “And Peter” wants him to know that he is still included in the circle of the disciples by Jesus. The word includes absolution for Peter. This has been denied because the absolution is only implied; but the Scriptures are full of such blessed implications. Absolutions are also repeated, that of Peter was. John 21:15, etc., is more than a personal absolution, it is a public reinstatement of Peter into his apostolic office. The claim that “and Peter” could have been understood in the opposite way by Peter, namely as a threat to him, is unwarranted after Luke 22:61.

We may regard ὅτι as recitativum (R. V.) or as meaning “that” (A. V.); the matter cannot be determined. The angel’s message is a promise: “He is going before you into Galilee; there you shall see him even as he said to you.” It is a fruitless endeavor to have ὑμᾶς, ὑμιν, and the second person in ὄψεοθε refer only to the disciples and to Peter to the exclusion of the women. The one reason for the use of these pronouns and the second person plural is that the women are most decidedly to be included. What reason could there be for excluding them—they who alone went to the tomb?

The angel almost quotes Jesus’ own promise from 14:28. From Matt. 28:10 we know that when Jesus met these women on their way back he himself repeated this promise about a meeting in Galilee. We see throughout that something special pertains to this seeing of Jesus in Galilee. That already makes it plain that this special meeting does not exclude the earlier appearances in Jerusalem and at Emmaus.

Jesus intended to meet all his believers up in Galilee as one great body. He had never before assembled them in this way. Paul regards this meeting as one of the great proofs of the resurrection of Jesus: “After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present (are still alive when Paul wrote), but some are fallen asleep,” 1 Cor. 15:6. This settles the supposition that Jesus at first intended to meet only the disciples in Galilee but afterward allowed his yearning heart and the weakness of the disciples to move him to appear at once. Jesus does not plan faultily, nor does he vacillate. All the meetings of individuals and of small groups in Jerusalem were preparations for the grand meeting with his entire flock in Galilee, where, far from the hostile Jews in their own homeland, he would bind all his believers together and give them the great Commission, Matt. 28:16, 18–20; Mark 16:15–18.

Mark 16:8

8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement held them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Mark describes only the reaction upon the women and stops with that. He says only that they went out whereas Matthew says that they went out “quickly.” When Mark says that “they fled from the tomb,” this describes the same action that is expressed by Matthew’s “they ran.” When some interpreter adds “as if they were escaping from some terrible danger” and attaches this thought to Mark and not to Matthew, the scene is misunderstood. Matthew reveals what made the women run: “fear and great joy,” he puts the fear first. Mark agrees: “for trembling and amazement was holding them.” Mark mentions the dominant reaction, the trembling and quivering of their bodies because of the tremendous excitement, and the ἔκστασις, really a state of mind when the subject passes beyond self-control. We should not imagine that the “great joy” to which Matthew refers is absent in Mark; it is included in this “ecstasy,” this feeling of utter amazement which swept their minds away. The fear is easily explained by the contact with the angels.

The natural reaction in all such contacts is the fear of poor mortal man. But the ecstatic amazement is produced by all that the women saw and heard in the tomb, and ἔκστασις is certainly the proper term.

When Mark writes that because of their fear they said nothing to anyone, this is taken in an absolute sense by not a few commentators, but it is in contradiction with Matt. 28:8: “they ran to bring his disciples word”; and with Luke 24:9: “and told all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest.” We are also told that these women never executed the angel’s command and told the story of what happened only at a much later time. This misunderstanding of Mark’s words becomes evident when we recall Matt. 28:9, 10. These women met and saw the risen Jesus himself who gave them the same commission that he gave the disciples.

A moment’s thought clears up all contradictions. These women did not rush in and blurt out what they had seen and heard. In the first place, the supposition that the Eleven were sitting together somewhere should be discarded. When Mary Magdalene hurried back to get help she was able to locate only two men, Peter and John. Now these two had left at Mary Magdalene’s call. When the women returned they failed to find any of the Eleven until they had hunted them up.

Luke should be understood in this way. And Mark covers this delay: not a word did these women say to anyone because they were held by fear and awe at what they had witnessed. The news was too great, filled with too much awe, to be blurted out generally. They told it to those whom the angel and the Lord had designated as soon as these could be reached.

What sense would there be for Mark to introduce a contradiction on a point which was so certain that a contradiction would at once be recognized? Besides the passages adduced see Luke 24:22, etc. It is hard to believe that Mark intended his readers to understand that the women disobeyed the angel’s orders and never executed them. Many feel this and resort to the hypothesis that Mark’s own record stopped with v. 8, and that v. 9–20 were added later by another writer and thus draw the further hypothetical conclusion that Mark intended to add the account of how the women told the disciples and delivered their message. But what about Matthew? He, too, fails to report that the women did as the angel and as Jesus ordered them.

If Mark stopped writing with v. 8, conjecture is wide open as to what he would have written if he had continued. Mark’s account is like Matthew’s; neither thinks it necessary to tell how the women delivered their message.

Mark 16:9

9 It is an old opinion that Mark left his Gospel unfinished, and that some later writer added what is called “the conclusion.” Zahn has supported this hypothesis with all his learning and ability and naturally has had a great following; some important scholars have, however, always held the opposite conviction, namely that Mark wrote the entire chapter as it now appears in our Bibles. Zahn’s work on this textual point certainly has great value: it reveals that in spite of all his efforts his contention has not been proven. Zahn is carried away by his enthusiasm for his hypothesis; hence he does not see the logic of some of the data that he presents and becomes rather one-sided in estimating the features of the text itself (v. 9–20). The entire subject cannot well be treated here, but the decisive points can and must be. For one thing, the student must know whether this closing section is inspired or not. If it is like the spurious section in John 8:1–11, he will discard it just as he discards that section; if it is like the last chapter of John’s Gospel, which was written with John’s consent though by others, the serious student will proceed with this conclusion and regard the section as genuine. But if Mark himself wrote these last verses, it will be a great relief to know that fact.

We are pointed to two kinds of evidence: the textual and the internal, both of which, we are assured, prove that Mark stopped writing with v. 8. We have no objection whatever to accepting this conclusion. If the last twelve verses are spurious they must be discarded as not being inspired, and we shall be satisfied with a text that ends at v. 8. But we decline to accept this conclusion unless we are able to accept also the proofs on which it rests. The internal proofs for the view that Mark could not have written these last verses are tested in detail in the exposition of these verses. The textual proofs we may examine here.

Any good New Testament Greek text will supply a complete survey of the textual situation (e.g., Novum Testamentum Græce, Alexander Souter) which it is not necessary to reprint here. We may say at once that the textual evidence for the so-called “short conclusion” (one consisting of only two verses) is so inferior as to rule out the idea that Mark wrote these verses. The hypothesis that Mark wrote a conclusion to his Gospel that is entirely lost to us is without support. So the issue, textually, lies between the texts that have nothing after v. 8 and those that have the verses that are listed as 9 to 20. The chief of the former are the Vatican and the Sinaitic, but of the latter the uncials A, C, and D. If this means anything it means that the textual evidence for the genuineness of v. 9–20 preponderates somewhat. All texts of lesser importance as well as all versions and evidences from ancient church writers are secondary and are in this case divided somewhat like the great uncials.

From this showing of the texts, etc., as they stand the conclusion is by no means evident that Mark stopped writing with verse eight and left his Gospel unfinished. So the advance is made from the texts as all authorities list them to an argument as to the significance of the two groups of texts and as to the possibilities and probabilities involved. Let it be noted that we are now dealing with argument pure and simple and with nothing more important. It generally veers into the question of internal evidence, but this and the textual evidence ought to be kept strictly apart. The point then turns out to be this: Which is the easier to conceive: a) that Mark left his Gospel unfinished and allowed it to be published in its unfinished form so that others later on invented an ending for it; or b) that Mark did finish his Gospel by writing v. 9–20, but that many copies later on omitted these verses?

Which is the easier to conceive? The correct answer is that both alternatives are about equally hard to conceive. Additional argument is therefore introduced to lend additional weight to the former conception and to detract weight from the latter. But this looks like special pleading, and this argument is purely hypothetical. How does Zahn know that Mark stopped writing at verse eight because he intended to add considerably more to his book, and that he yielded to the pleas of his friends to publish this unfinished book without further delay? But even if he had intended to write much more, his friends would have urged him to hurry that writing, or would have urged him to write a shorter conclusion so as to publish the book without delay. It is inconceivable that friends should have urged publication of a text that had nothing beyond v. 8, and still more inconceivable that Mark should have consented.

The hypothesis that Mark intended to write much more is unsatisfactory. The other Gospels speak to the contrary, especially Matthew whom Mark resembles most. Matthew’s resurrection section has only twenty verses, exactly as many as Mark has. It is surprising to hear that Mark stopped writing at v. 8 and then to let “months and years” pass while his friends began to copy and to circulate what he had left unfinished. This is simply not conceivable. And how long would it have taken for Mark to go on with say two more chapters—if he had desired that much additional? A couple of hours! And he put this off for “months and years”? Mark could not have added more than that much at the outside without totally unbalancing his book—and we note that he keeps a very close and tidy proportion.

We are willing to conceive what we can, but we are forced to draw the line at unsatisfactory hypotheses. Let us note in addition that if your book or mine had been published surreptitiously in an unfinished form, you and I would certainly at once republish it in a completed form. This more than answers the critical hypothesis, it turns that hypothesis against itself. If friends did publish the incomplete book, it may well be possible that Mark promptly published it completely with its twelve additional verses.

The hypothesis of a Mark that closes with 16:8 is supported by the critical canon that, where two mutually exclusive longer texts are opposed to a shorter text from which their origin can be explained, the shorter reading is to be preferred, especially if it has good witnesses. One is surprised to find this appeal to a critical canon which applies to incidental readings such as single words, phrases, other short expressions, at most the addition of some sentence in the text. But it is another matter whether a question like this, that involves twelve entire verses, and these the proper conclusion of a whole book which would otherwise be markedly incomplete, can be settled by means of this critical canon.

Among the arguments and hypotheses is that of Mark’s sudden death which compelled him to stop at 16:8; his friends then felt it their duty to publish the book without additions. No; granting the death, all books of such a nature are published with a note concerning the author’s death in explanation of the unfinished product which he left behind. In ordinary cases, especially if the part lacking be small, a competent friend adds what is still necessary in the spirit and the form of the author. But as regards Mark, tradition reports that he lived for some years after writing his Gospel in Rome, that he labored in Egypt and was the first to found churches in Alexandria, Eusebius, 2:16; Zahn, Introduction, II, 431 and 448.

The hypothesis that an accident happened to Mark’s original manuscript which deleted its concluding verses before publication was made, is untenable. Mark was there to supply whatever had been destroyed; there were others, too, for that matter, who had heard what he wrote before the publication. Even Zahn denies that the author of v. 9–20 is Aristion as might be concluded from an Armenian Evangelistarium of the year 989; he, it seems, merely made v. 14–18 a part of his collection of narratives and traditions. This Aristion may or may not be the personal disciple of Jesus who was the teacher of Papias.

The situation textually is then this: three sets of texts: one set that has no concluding section; one that has two concluding verses; one that has a concluding section of twelve verses. Which of these three is it most conceivable that Mark actually wrote? We answer, the last of the three. We have fully stated why we find it inconceivable that Mark left his Gospel unfinished and have omitted the discussion of minor points such as the expressions and quotations of the fathers, etc. But when we accept the completed Gospel as coming from the hand of Mark we, too, are left with the question: “How did these three texts originate? In particular, how came these texts that stop with v. 8?” The fact is that nobody knows.

Hence only hypothetical answers can be given. But let it be noted well: as between the answer that Mark stopped writing at v. 8 and the other that he wrote on to v. 20, it is beyond question the latter that seems most conceivable. In other words, it is untenable to have Mark stop at v. 8 and allow publication; but it is not untenable that after he completed his Gospel, in some way that is now wholly unknown to us abbreviated copies should have been published. As far as the situation regarding the texts is concerned, this is the correct finding.

Turning now to the internal evidence, the question is this: “Do these last verses betray the fact that Mark did not write them, or are their language and their character such as show that Mark could not have written them?” We unhesitatingly answer in the negative. Already the general admission of the critics is significant that the conclusion of the Gospel shows careful consideration and harmonizes well with its beginning, especially in this that the apostles are ordered to go and preach the gospel in all the world, and that they indeed did this. But this is rather strong evidence for Mark’s composition of this so fitting conclusion. The better the conclusion fits, the more likely it is that it stems from Mark; the reverse cannot be held. The rest of the internal evidence we treat in the exposition of the verses themselves.

Now, after having risen early on the first with reference to the Sabbath, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She having gone, made report to those that had been with him as they were mourning and weeping. And they, when they heard that he was living and had been beheld by her, disbelieved.

The statement that this merely chronicles the appearance of Jesus and does not narrate it is unwarranted. This is a brief narration. It has a number of narrative features in spite of its brevity: the expulsion of the seven demons, the description of the disciples, the two participles “as they were mourning and weeping,” and the entire last verse. It is unwarranted to say that because of their brevity Mark could not have written these three verses. It lies with the writer at what length he wishes to record an event. Mark uses similar and even greater brevity elsewhere.

Attention may be drawn to 1:12, 13, also to 1:14, 15; it would seem strange to admit that Mark could write these two short narratives (even they are not chronicles) but not 16:9–11. The fact that at a far later time John (20:11–18) told the story of Mary Magdalene at greater length is no reason to claim that Mark could not have written this brief account. The claim that these verses about Mary Magdalene are drawn from John’s account and were thus written by a later writer has little basis in fact. The wording is different. Where in John’s account is πρῶτον, where the expulsion of the demons, where the mourning and weeping, and where the ὅτι clause?

Mark uses ἀναστάς whereas in the angel’s word recorded in v. 6 he used the other verb ἠγέρθη. No point has been made of this difference by the critics. Jesus himself arose from the dead. Both verbs are used repeatedly to designate this act, the latter sometimes in the passive sense: “he was raised,” i.e., by God. In the preceding narrative the time of the resurrection is not stated except by implication; Mark now states the time in so many words. We see that he intends that his readers shall know the exact time, for as regards Mary this temporal modifier would not have been needed with ἀναστάς. Mark connects with δέ. While it is true that he loves καί, yet note 13:9–14:1, five consecutive sections that are not connected with καί.

Much has been made of πρώτῃσαββάτου, which differs from the standard form with μιᾷ (used by Mark himself in v. 2). But what law requires that a writer dare not alter his expressions? See how Mark varies the identification of the second Mary in 15:40, in 15:47, and again in 16:1. But in this case it has been noted that Mark uses πρώτῃ to match the following adverb πρῶτον: on this first day after the Sabbath Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. The uneasiness about the singular σαββάτου is unnecessary, for either the singular or the plural would be proper, both mean “the first of the Sabbath” in the sense “the first with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., Sunday. Ἐφάνη is the proper word: Jesus “appeared” to Mary; Mark has the same verb in 14:64 in its other sense. It is one of Mark’s peculiarities that he omits the subject “Jesus” as he does in the present instance.

It is a question whether πρῶτον is to be taken in an absolute sense or relative to the following appearances that are recorded by Mark. If it is absolute, then Jesus appeared to Mary first and in the next few moments to the other women as they were hurrying back from the tomb (Matt. 28:9). If it is relative, then we may reverse the order of these appearances.

Much has been made of the addition “from whom he had cast out seven devils.” Mark has already mentioned this Mary three times in quick succession (15:40, 47; 16:1) and always in the same way. It is assumed that he ought to do so again this fourth time. But this addition, we are told, betrays another hand, one that quotes from Luke 8:2. Luke, like John, wrote after Mark, hence these concluding verses are not written by Mark. But this is drawing conclusions without warrant. There is an evident reason why this relative clause should be added to this final mention of Mary Magdalene.

Jesus appeared to her separately because he had cast out seven devils from her and thus brought her on the course that made her the foremost of all the women disciples. In a similar way Jesus appeared also to Peter alone (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5). It is expecting a good deal to ask us to believe that an unknown hand chronicled John 20:1–18 and yet dipped back into Luke 8:2 for this individual clause.

Moreover, the critics overlook the change of verb; Luke says that the seven demons “had gone out” (pointing to the benefit to Mary); Mark that “he had thrown them out” (pointing to the great Benefactor). To say that this clause speaks of Mary as a person who is being introduced here for the first time is pointless, for this charge could be advanced against any other writer as well as against Mark. It is Mark himself who writes this clause, it is like Luke’s drawing from the apostolic tradition which Mark had received directly from Peter; and each writer worded the clause to fit his particular connection.

Mark 16:10

10 It is again jumping to conclusions to claim that Mark wants us to understand that only Mary Magdalene made a report to the disciples and not the other women. See v. 8 on the latter. Luke 24:10 combines Mary Magdalene with the other women in making the report. This summarizes the matter of the report but puts Mark’s meaning beyond dispute for those who let one evangelist explain the other. R., W. P., pronounces ἐκείνη (= illa) good Greek although it is not used elsewhere by Mark (but compare John 19:35) in just the way in which it is used here. No argument can be based on the uncompounded πορευθεῖσα, “having gone,” which Mark uses only in a variant reading in 9:30 although he has it twice in the following verses (12 and 15); it is nothing but the common verb for going.

But τοῖςμετʼ αὐτοῦγενομένοις is noteworthy, not because this designation of the disciples argues against Mark’s being the writer, but because it argues to the contrary because of its resemblance to οἱπαρʼ αὐτοῦ, a similar circumlocution. The aorist participle expresses merely the past fact that “they were” in the company of (μετά) Jesus; we should use the past perfect in English: “to those who had been with him.” But the addition of two decidedly graphic participles speaks plainly of Mark’s acknowledged love of details and emotional touches in his narratives. He alone tells us that the disciples were “mourning and weeping,” durative present tenses. All their hopes were crushed by the death of Jesus. Yet Mark writes as though by this time the Eleven were gathered together again whereas before, as we have every reason to assume, they had been scattered.

Mark 16:11

11 The statement about the unbelief of the disciples agrees with the other evangelists’. The fact that Mark uses the verb ἀπιστεῖν only in this connection is no stranger than for Luke to use it only in the same connection in 24:11, 41. The point in the use of certain words is not whether the writer has used them elsewhere but whether they fit what he wants to say. This is true also regarding ἐθεάθη which is certainly the correct term for beholding the glorified body of the Savior whether Mark’s short Gospel uses this word elsewhere or not. The Greek retains the direct discourse as it was originally heard by the disciples: “that he is living and was beheld by her”; the English requires the change to the past and the past perfect after a past tense of hearing: “that he was living and had been seen by her.”

Mark 16:12

12 A climax has been observed in the three appearances recorded by Mark: first to one person, next to two, then to the Eleven. This must, however, be carried a step farther: finally to the five hundred (v. 15–18). Now after these things he was manifested in another form to two of them while walking, they going into the country. And they having come away, reported to the rest; neither them did they believe.

It ought to be granted by the most critical that this brief account is not a summary that is drawn from Luke 24:13–35, the beautiful narrative of the two disciples that went to Emmaus as Jesus went with them and did not reveal himself until he broke the bread at table. The reason this is unlikely is the final statement which seems to clash with Luke 24:34. A later writer would have avoided this but not so Mark who wrote before Luke. Μετὰταῦτα is an entirely innocent phrase although it appears only here in Mark. Thus far we have been told about events that occurred in the morning, we are now taken to the evening, hence “after these things.” The Eleven already had more than enough, but still more awaits them. We have the partitive use of ἐκ in ἐξαὐτῶν, “two of them,” one of them being Clopas (Luke 24:18). The descriptive touch “while walking,” to which is added appositionally “while going into the country,” is after the manner of Mark, εἰςἀγρόν recalling ἀπʼ ἀγροῦ, “from the country,” in 15:21 and the phrases with the plural in 5:14; 6:36, 56. The verb “he was manifested” is just as exact as is “he appeared” in v. 9; both aorists declare the fact.

“In a different form” has no connection with Phil. 2:7, nor with the form of Jesus during his earthly sojourn. The μορφή is the form that corresponds to the being, the opposite of a mask or mere outward change of clothes. The form in which Jesus walked with these two disciples was one that they did not recognize as being Jesus’ whereas the form in which he appeared to Mary Magdalene (and to the other women in Matt. 28:9) was one that was recognized immediately as being Jesus’. Mark says nothing about the moment of recognition in Emmaus, he speaks only of the walking and going there and of Jesus’ form during this time. This is not a contradiction with Luke 24:16, 31, where we are told that the eyes of the two disciples were at first held and then at last opened. Mark writes about the strange thing about Jesus, Luke about the strange thing about the two disciples.

In order to walk with the disciples as Jesus did he must have appeared like one of them. But even so they might have guessed who he really was, especially when he spoke as Luke 24:25, etc., states. The holding of their eyes prevented that. The usual interpretation of the phrase “in a different form”: in one that was different from his former ordinary appearance, that was transformed in a glorified body, does not satisfy. If this were the meaning, the phrase should appear in v. 9, for all the manifestations of the risen Savior were made in a bodily form that differed from his old, ordinary form. We may add, however, that Jesus did not always appear in the same glorified form during the forty-day period.

The records read as if there were differences in his glorified μορφή.

Mark 16:13

13 Ἀπελθόντες refers to εἰςἀγρόν, they came away from the country, i.e., from Emmaus, back to “the rest,” the Eleven and other believers. When Mark reports that they did not believe even these witnesses he does not seem to agree with Luke 24:34, where the disciples greet the two who came from Emmaus by saying: “The Lord did truly arise!” But note what Luke himself writes in v. 41 after Jesus actually appeared to all the disciples and after he had showed them his hands and his feet: “while they were still disbelieving from joy.” This is the disbelief which Mark records as greeting the report of the Emmaus disciples. We therefore do not need the solution which points to Matt. 28:17 and would have us regard Mark as saying that only some doubted. Mark says more. Others think that an interval must be placed between Mark’s statement and Luke’s in 24:34, that there was at first disbelief and then faith. The real faith did not come until after Luke 24:43.

Mark 16:14

14 And afterward he was manifested to the Eleven themselves while reclining at table, and he upbraided their unbelief and heart stiffness because they did not believe them that did behold him as having arisen.

Luke recites this incident at greater length (24:36, etc.); but Mark’s brief account is altogether independent of Luke’s. Note the unity of thought from v. 9 onward: every witness sent to the Eleven and the rest is met with unbelief; “they disbelieved,” v. 11; “they did not believe,” v. 13. Jesus himself now faces these disbelievers and scores them for the condition of their hearts. This strong statement regarding the unbelief of the disciples is like the statements about their earlier unbelief recorded in Luke 9:45 and 18:34 (compare Mark 9:32). Only Mark tells us that the disciples were dining; it was the late δεῖπνον or dinner, hence also Luke 24:41–43 where we are told that Jesus ate before them in order to overcome every trace of unbelief.

This unbelief is not something that is merely intellectual as unbelievers and others often believe. When Jesus appeared (ἐφανερώθη as in v. 12, Mark often repeats the same term) and upbraided the disciples, it was not merely their disbelief that he scored but also their σκληροκαρδία, “hardness of heart” or rather “heart stiffness” that refuses to bend and yield to the proper evidence, refuses to believe in spite of such evidence. The root of all unbelief lies in this heart stiffness. The intellect and its skeptical arguments are only the slave of this hardened heart. Why hearts thus harden themselves against the clearest and completest evidence of truth is and will ever remain a mystery. But the guilt of such hearts is beyond question.

Whereas they should believe they refuse to believe; what they ought not to trust they persist in trusting. The guilt is expressed in ὠνείδισε, “he upbraided”; this word shows with what severity Jesus treated the unbelieving disciples.

Ὅτι is best regarded as stating the reason for the upbraiding and not the contents of the upbraiding. It is “that they did not believe” the proper witnesses whose testimony merited the fullest belief. In τοῖςθεασαμένοις we have the same verb ἐθεάθη that was used in v. 11. It makes clear the requirement of every real witness, that he must have seen and beheld with his own eyes what he testifies. This was the case with all who testified to the Eleven, etc. They had “viewed” Jesus, had seen him fully and completely, had talked with him, and some had even touched him (Matt. 28:9).

Jesus is here designated as ἐγηγερμένος, the perfect participle referring to a present state, the result of a past act; Jesus is “the one having risen” and ever remaining such. The question is again whether we should regard this passive form like the passive form that occurs in v. 6 which is practically active in meaning: “he having risen” or as actually being passive: “he having been raised up.” The dictionaries and the grammars uphold the former intransitive sense. The disciples, of course, deserved the severe blame that was administered to them by Jesus. And yet in the providence of God their slowness to believe is of great value to us today. They were not a credulous set as the opponents of Christ’s resurrection assert. They were hardheaded as well as hardhearted about the matter.

And yet in the end they all believed, believed with a world-conquering faith. If only one had disbelieved with final disbelief, disbelievers today might justify themselves by reference to him; but now the witnesses are absolutely unanimous against them.

Mark 16:15

15 The verses that follow are placed in the same paragraph with v. 14 by the editors who print the text in paragraphs and are treated accordingly by the commentators. Jesus then spoke these words, the only ones that Mark has preserved from the lips of the risen Savior, in the closed room where he found the disciples dining. But permit us to question this paragraphing and this comment. These words of Jesus sound much like those that are recorded in Matt. 28:18–20, which were spoken in Galilee (Matt. 28:16). They contain the same Great Commission and similar great promises. If we begin a new paragraph at v. 15 we have the very matter in Mark which so many otherwise miss, namely the meeting in Galilee which is made so important by 14:28; Matt. 28:10; and Mark 16:7.

It was on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus met all his disciples by appointment, about 500 in all (1 Cor. 15:6). Here under the open sky, with the grand panorama of the whole country before him, Jesus spoke Matt. 28:18–20 and, we feel convinced, also Mark 16:15–18. He may have said much more, for even these two sections are all too brief.

This is, of course, most convincing for ascribing the authorship of this entire conclusion to Mark and not to a later unknown writer. It spoils the argument by which the conclusion is torn into bits and leaves in it only one real narrative, namely v. 14–18. But v. 14 most clearly stands by itself, and its subject is unbelief, nothing but hardhearted unbelief. Why it should be placed into the same paragraph with v. 15–18 is not apparent. The connective καί does not compel that; it binds no more closely than does δέ. But δέ would not be in place here, for Mark is not narrating a fourth appearance of Jesus (note the three δέ preceding), he is passing on to the climax, the Great Commission and Promise of the risen Savior. Mark feels he does not need to state that this involves his appearance in Galilee, especially since the emphasis is to be on what Jesus said and not on his appearance as such.

And he said to them: Having gone into all the world, herald the gospel to the whole creation! He that believed and was baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieved shall be condemned. Moreover, these signs shall follow them that believed: in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink anything deadly, it shall in no wise hurt them; on the sick they shall place hands, and they shall be well.

The old observation is correct that we here have the great missionary Magna Charta that corresponds with Matt. 28:16–20. A further step is in order, namely that these words, too, were spoken on the mountain in Galilee. The going into all the world is subsidiary, hence it is expressed by the participle; but it is unwarranted to make an issue of εἰςτὸνκόσμονἅπαντα as being against Mark’s authorship (compare τὸνκόσμονὅλον in 8:36). The verb κηρύσσειν takes us back to the very beginning of Mark’s Gospel, to 1:4 (compare the notes on the verb there); τὸεὐαγγέλιον likewise takes us back to the very caption of the Gospel (1:1, where the term is discussed). The aorist imperative is peremptory, the command also stands for all time. “To the whole creation” is the correct translation because the Greek has the article; not “to every creature,” which would require the absence of the article. Note how the presence or the absence of the article changes the sense also in English. Κτίσις is, of course, not taken in the absolute sense but is like Matthew’s πάντατὰἔθνη, “all the nations,” meaning the whole creature world of men.

The important point is the universality of grace which is expressed so mightily in this command of Jesus’: no human being is shut out from the gospel by Jesus; absolutely all are to hear this gospel with the one divine purpose that they all are to believe, for κηρύσσειν and πιστεύειν are ever correlatives; no preaching except to lead to believing, and no believing except by the preaching. Note that “the whole creation” cannot mean only the generation of men then living. The expression reaches to the end of time. If it is asked how the apostles could herald the gospel that far, the answer is that they did this through the New Testament and through the voice of every man who preaches and teaches that New Testament. How fitting that this glorious command should have been uttered by Jesus on a mountaintop!

Mark 16:16

16 The command is at once sealed by a promise. “He that believed and was baptized shall be saved.” The connection is evident because believing is the one purpose of preaching. The two participles are substantivized and describe the person that shall be saved. Both are aorists. This is natural in the case of βαπτισθείς because the act of baptizing is just one and a very brief one at that. We may regard the aorist πιστεύσας in the same way, as referring to the one momentary act of coming to faith. Both acts would precede the future act σωθήσεται, and the meaning would be that the moment one comes to faith and baptism salvation would be his.

See 1:15 on πιστεύειν as the trust and confidence of the heart that rest on the gospel. The aorist participle has something definite about it: to come to faith positively; such faith, of course, lasts. This, too, may lie in the aorist if we view it as being constative, as embracing the entire course of believing.

In σώζειν there lie the ideas of rescue and deliverance from the mortal danger of death and judgment (destruction, ἀπώλεια) and the placing into a state of blessed security (life eternal), C.-K. 1031, etc. The verb and its cognate terms form one of the greatest, most distinctive, and wonderful concepts of the Scriptures. The passive always connotes the “Savior,” either Christ or God. Christianity is the one religion which does not demand that the sinner save himself but that he permit the Son of God to save him and keep him safe. We may regard the future tense as punctiliar, as expressing one act: “shall be saved,” but decisively saved with a salvation once for all.

Faith and baptism are combined here as the means of obtaining salvation. For one thing, faith and baptism always go together; the moment a man believes he will want and will have baptism. By believing he clings to the gospel, and part of that gospel is baptism. But believing is subjective, the act of baptism is objective. They go together in this way. Baptism cannot, therefore, be a mere sign or symbol that bestows nothing.

If it were no more it could not be so vitally connected with salvation. Baptism bestows, and the believing baptized person accepts and receives this great σωητρία from the Savior. For anyone who comes to faith baptism is the great means of grace, i.e., the channel by which forgiveness, life, and salvation are bestowed upon him. As he believes the Word, so he will demand all that the Word promises in baptism and thus the baptismal act itself. He who claims to believe but refuses and rejects baptism most surely deceives himself about believing; his could be only a highly pathological faith.

Jesus properly adds the other side since many to whom the gospel is proclaimed will refuse to believe in it: “but he that disbelieves shall be condemned.” The tenses are the same as they were in the preceding statement: “he that comes to disbelieve at that very moment shall have the verdict of condemnation pronounced upon him by Christ, the Judge of all men.” This involves the fact that the person hears the gospel preached, for only then can he answer it with disbelief. And ἀπιστήσας has the same definite and positive sense as the preceding πιστεύσας, “disbelieve once for all.” Nothing is said about those who never hear the gospel and thus never get to believe or to disbelieve; the Scriptures leave their fate in God’s hands, and it is in vain for us to speculate. Only the general statement is given, hence nothing is said of a believer who afterward falls into disbelief or of a disbeliever who finally comes to faith. But both cases are clear as to their fate.

In the negative statement nothing is said about being baptized simply because nothing needs to be said. If a disbeliever does receive baptism, it will not save him because by his disbelief he refuses to accept the salvation that is offered him in the sacrament. But by disbelieving the gospel he disbelieves also the baptism which is a part of it, hence he will refuse to be baptized and will disown a previously received baptism. To disbelieve the gospel is thus in itself decisive for condemnation. Yet the omission of baptism in this statement leaves open another possibility, namely that one comes to faith, desires baptism, but is overtaken by death before he is able to receive the sacrament. This case is plain: not the lack of baptism but its rejection is fatal.

This man is saved by the Word alone. Cases such as this will naturally be very rare.

Fastidious ears do not like the translation “shall be damned,” but it is as correct and true as the other, “he shall be condemned.” The softest name does not alter hell in the least. When R., W. P., 405 writes that “so serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark,” we reply that it has this support in all the passages of the New Testament regarding baptism, and secondly that this portion of Mark is not made doubtful by the dispute of so many but is as genuine as the great part that only a few critics dispute. Finally, although Mark does not record the institution of baptism as also Luke and John fail to do he implies its institution in the words he quotes from Jesus.

Mark 16:17

17 The miraculous signs promised to the disciples are not new. Matthew relates the assurance of Jesus’ constant presence, Mark the wonderful effects of this presence. When the apostles were ordained, the miraculous signs were promised to them, 3:15; Matt. 10:1; Mark’s present list is only a little fuller. These signs “followed them” on their preliminary preaching tour as the seventy themselves reported in Luke 10:17.

Jesus calls these miracles σημεῖα, “signs,” and uses the ethical term for them, which is far higher than “wonders” or “power works.” For a sign points beyond itself to something that is far higher, of which it is a specific indication. Compare 8:11. These signs were thus credentials for the apostles and their gospel message, seals that proved their message genuine and exhibited the fact that the living and risen Jesus was present with them and working through them.

The phrase “in my name” is explained in 9:37. It has often been understood to mean “on my authority” whereas it really means “in connection with my revelation” or “the revelation of me.” Compare 1:23 on demoniacs; the Acts furnish some examples of the work of the apostles. To speak in tongues, whether the well-attested adjective “new” is added or not, is the speaking in “other tongues” as this is described at length in Acts 2. The question as to what these “tongues” really were is treated fully in the commentary on First Corinthians 12:10 as well as chapter 14. We add only this: there were not two kinds of speaking in tongues; Acts 2 is decisive regarding the point that the tongues were foreign languages that had never been learned by the speakers but were perfectly understood by those who spoke these languages.

Many strange theories have been advanced regarding these tongues, and they have borne vicious fruit: men fell into ecstatic conditions and uttered crazy gibberish, and thousands believed that this was a renewal of the gift of speaking with tongues. The last craze started in California, swept to Norway, then took on considerable dimensions in Germany, where it ceased when prominent exponents of it finally confessed that evil spirits had moved them. Theories on religious subjects are not always innocuous and harmless.

Mark 16:18

18 “Shall take up serpents” recalls Luke 10:19, treading on serpents and scorpions. We have one example of escaping death from a serpent’s bite in Acts 28:3, etc. Some would translate αἴρειν “remove” or “destroy” (Luther, vertreiben); but, while this is possible, it does not seem warranted since snakes may be driven out without the exercise of miraculous power. Rationalism thinks of snake charming and the like, which sounds rather absurd. The καί wants us to combine these two miracles: protection from poisonous serpents and from poisonous drink. We have no example of the latter in the New Testament.

But tradition reports that the apostle John drank poison without harm, likewise Justus Barsabas (Eusebius, 3, 39). Some have thought that the reference is to the death penalty, the culprit being condemned to drink poison; but who can say? Many, like Bruce, think that what is said about venomous serpents and poisonous drink takes us “into the twilight of apocryphal story.” But is this judgment fair? Is it really a small thing, something fanciful and apocryphal, to escape sudden death by venom or poisonous drink? Is healing the sick like Peter’s mother-in-law from a fever so much greater as a sign, so much less apocryphal than to escape mortal dangers? The exegete should always keep his balance.

To prefer the charge of being apocryphal against this section of Mark’s Gospel is ineffective because it could be launched only against the serpents and the drink. The demons, tongues, and sick appear too often and at too great length to be included in such a charge. Must all these verses from nine to twenty come from a late writer because of these two points? The contrary seems reasonable, namely that no man would have added a word about serpents or poisonous drink if he had undertaken to write a conclusion to Mark’s Gospel; only the original writer, Mark himself, dared to add items that are not preserved elsewhere. Mark had received them from Peter, and finding fault with them is not good. To think of strange secular sources from which these two items in the list might be drawn is just as ineffective.

We have no compilation here, the text, v. 17, 18, stands undisputed, the support for the five items is the same. Therewith let us be content.

Healing the sick or weak (made weak by sickness, ἄρρωτοι) is a well-known miraculous gift, examples of which occur in the Acts. Καλῶςἔξουσιν resembles the expression found in 5:23, the idiom ἔχειν with an adverb being translated “to be”: “shall be well.” We may note that neither in this full list nor in any other passage that promises miraculous signs is the power of raising the dead included, and yet we have two examples of this miracle in the Acts and one in Eusebius 3, 39.

The fear of R., W. P., 405, that we may draw unwarranted conclusions for doctrine and practice from these words in Mark is not met by his conviction that these twelve verses are not genuine, for demons, tongues, and sick are found in unquestioned passages. We have heard of the abuse of tongues, of all kinds of faith and prayer healing of the sick in recent times, but only little of serpents or deadly potions. The latter need not worry us but only the former when it is said that to attest its genuineness today Christianity must produce healings, and some would say tongues. Such false deductions are shut out by a far more important consideration than the spuriousness of two items in Mark’s conclusion. The miraculous gifts were seals that were appended to the gospel preaching in the early days only.

They followed those that came to faith (πιστεύσασι, v. 17, aorist), and even then not promiscuously and like a common thing but in given cases as the Spirit saw fit. When sufficient attestations were provided, these miraculous gifts ceased; for those recorded in Scripture were sufficient and stand today as signs and credentials for us, just as if they had been wrought before our eyes. To call for an endless line of signs declares only that the original signs were not enough. But the Lord does not discredit himself and his promised signs in such a foolish way.

Mark 16:19

19 So, then, the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them was received up into the heaven and sat down at the right of God. And they, having gone out, heralded everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the Word through the signs that kept following after.

These two verses constitute the real conclusion of Mark’s Gospel and not, as is generally assumed, the entire section v. 9–20. Note the connectives μὲνοὖν and δέ which balance what is said about the Lord’s exaltation with what is said about the disciples’ work. The phrase “after he spoke to them” refers to all the communications that were delivered during the forty-day period, which includes even the words that are recorded in Acts 1:4–8; the only other alternative would be to think only of the words that were spoken immediately before the ascension from Mt. Olivet. It is unwarranted to regard what Mark says as taking place in the room where the disciples were dining (v. 14), which would have Jesus ascend from this dining-room on the Sunday evening of his resurrection.

Mark indicates the time of the ascension only in the most general way. He intends to say that Jesus remained until he had finished communicating all that he thought necessary for his disciples. Note λαλῆσαι, utterance as opposed to silence, and the aorist to indicate that this utterance was not progressing but was fully finished. Luke alone reports the time of the ascension exactly, forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), and also the place, Olivet or the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem (Luke 24:50).

Mark states only the fact of the ascension, Luke gives us the description in both his Gospel and the Acts. “He was received up into the heaven” states exactly what took place. The passive makes God the agent in this act; Luke speaks in the same way. The bodily form of Jesus rose visibly toward heaven and was presently enveloped in a cloud. During the forty days the disciples had often seen Jesus leave by disappearing suddenly. He had never left in this way as he was now ascending into heaven. They now knew that he would not appear to them again as he had appeared during the forty days; they had seen him in bodily form here on earth for the last time.

Much attention has been given to the addition: “and sat down at the right of God.” We are told that this is passing from the field of history to that of theology. Again that this is not the language of Mark and his time but the language of a later church era. But the simple fact is that Mark keeps to history. It is just as much a historical fact that Jesus sat down at God’s right as it is that he was received up into the heaven; both verbs are historical aorists. Instead of finding late church language in these words and thus attributing them to some other writer the language actually goes back to Ps. 110 and is used again and again prior to Mark’s writing and also about the same time, cf., Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21.

Nor was this merely “a cherished belief” of the early church; it was far more, a belief and a confession that were based on fact, a fact that had been prophesied and was then fulfilled. Though no one says so, the trouble regarding these words is the fact that, while the disciples saw that Jesus was taken up to heaven, they did not see that he sat down at God’s right. That’s why the former is called history and the latter theology. But the canon is unwarranted that only what impinges on the senses in this narrow world is history. Divine revelation was necessary to know the fact of the sessio ad dextra, and this was vouchsafed to Peter (Mark’s source) as well as to the other apostles.

The Greek idiom in ἐκ views the side as extending out from God, and the idiomatic plural δεξιά views the right as consisting of parts. It is the human nature that ascended and sat at God’s right; the divine nature needed to do neither. In Mark’s words we have the heavenly exaltation of Jesus. To speak of God’s right is, of course, anthropomorphitic, for as a spirit he has no right or left, nor do the Scriptures ever mention God’s left. The right hand of God is his omnipotent majesty, compare the passages cited above. To sit at his right is to exercise that majestic omnipotence most fully.

Jesus had exercised it in a limited way here on earth in his miracles. He now rules as the Almighty King and Lord forever. And he now does this in his human nature which alone was capable of such exaltation, and was capable of it only as being joined to the divine nature, for omnipotence, majesty, and all divine attributes were the property of the Son from all eternity.

Mark 16:20

20 Ἐκεῖνοι refers to the apostles. Mark closes with a grand summary and thus says nothing about the selection of Matthias to fill the place of Judas. The apostles “went out” is explained by “everywhere,” out into the whole creation, out to all nations. They “heralded,” preached and proclaimed publicly “the Word,” “the gospel” (v. 15; see 1:1). In Matthew, Jesus promises to be with them, Mark says that he manifested his presence by “working with them,” by making the gospel effective wherever they heralded it. Note the durative force of συνεργοῦντος, likewise of the next present participle βεβαιοῦντος.

Confirming the Word was done in addition to working with the disciples. In ὁλόγος the substance or thought is indicated of which the spoken utterance consists. To confirm or establish it means to prove its truth and reality. For this the signs mentioned in v. 17, 18 had been promised, and this promise was now redeemed, vide the Acts. Διά states that the signs were the medium for the confirmation.

When attention is drawn to the fact that several words appear here that are not otherwise found in Mark, in fact, not even in the other Gospels (συνεργεῖν, βεβαιοῦν, ἐπακολουθεῖν, and πανταχοῦ only once in Luke), this cannot be advanced as proof against the authorship of Mark. All the words are simple, the very ones that are proper for the thought, and no law exists that in a small book like Mark’s every word has to be used at least twice in order to be used at all. Many hapaxlegomena occur throughout the New Testament, and all that is done is to note this interesting fact; the passages in which they occur are not considered to be of doubtful authorship. Let us treat Mark in the same fair way.

In the last two verses we twice find ὁΚύριος, “the Lord,” and nowhere else in this Gospel. Here if anywhere in this Gospel the title “Lord” is in place, in fact, eminently in place. Note this title coming involuntarily to the lips of Mary Magdalene in John 20:18; see the same thing in Luke 24:34. In the ascensio and sessio and in the working with and the confirmation by signs the divine and mighty Lordship is made clear in the most glorious way. Instead of casting doubt on the authorship of these verses by giving them a liturgical character, Mark deserves praise for reserving this great title for the end of his Gospel. When Mark wrote, the title was in common use, and he might have employed it throughout his Gospel.

But he did not do this; by using it twice in a marked way at the very end he merges his Gospel into the faith, confession, and worship of the church as it existed in his day. The “amen” at the end is a late addition in the manuscripts and is like the headings of the Gospels and the other books.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R. Word Pictures in the New Testament by Archibald Thomas Robertson.