Making Sense of the Ending of Mark | Mark 16:9-20 | Pastor Daniel Batarseh (Gospel of Mark Series)

I welcome you today to the final installment in our study of the gospel of Mark. It's been a wonderful two years journeying through this book together. Today's message is Today's message is going to be quite different than other sermons that we have heard from this series in Mark. And I hope you're convinced of this already, that this ministry is committed to preaching the whole counsel of God. And that pursuit looks like us, looking at every verse in the scriptures and seeking to explain and expound on what it has to convey.

But this afternoon, we're not going to so much expound on the final verses of the gospel of Mark, as much as we are going to discuss a commentary about these verses. And the reason for this is because there is a marginal note that is found in most English translations of the new testament, usually located immediately after verse eight. And I want you to see it with me because it's a disclaimer similar to what we find in the ESV and we can turn there now to read it together. You see it in brackets there in your bibles? Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16 verses nine to 20.

Now it's very likely that you have encountered this in your personal reading and it's equally likely that it troubled you when you did. And my desire is to help ease any troubles through this sermon, and I'm also aware that this message, though that is the goal, can be a little bit overwhelming. It might be overwhelming to hear some of these names and the research and the history and the quotations, but there's so many things I can say about a sermon like this. One of them is, it's necessary. Right?

Could have easily come to this point in our gospel, study of Mark, and skipped over it to avoid, dealing with the scholarly aspect of the bible. And it's necessarily necessarily also because when it comes to attack on your faith, it boils down to the Bible. Because this is where we get everything from. This is where we understand our salvation, where we understand our practice, where we understand the nature of God, and our calling and our mission as the church. And so we have to we have to be serious students of the Bible and be willing to explore certain elements of the behind the scenes aspect of our Bibles.

And that's what we're going to do today. We're gonna do an overview of it, and my desire in planning and praying for this was to make it as simple as possible, so that you don't feel overwhelmed in the process. But at the same time, to not make it so simple where it lacks genuine substance. I wanted to be true substance so that you can arrive to clear and concrete conclusions about the veracity of the Bible, about the reliability of the Bible. And so understand that this is probably gonna be less than an hour, unless the Holy Spirit desires to do something else and beyond that.

But know that in preparation for this, there have been hours upon hours upon hours of comparison, examination, fact checking to bring it to this point, to make it digestible. And so this is more than just a message for one particular Sunday. My desire and my plan really was that because of the technology that we have in our age, that this would be recorded, which I pray that it would be and preserved, and that you can revisit this whenever you need to. See, you might be sitting here now hearing what I'm about to to teach and think, okay, that that might be nice, but I don't know how this is helpful to me. But if you engage with people who are skeptics or who might challenge your faith, I assure you that what you're gonna hear today is going to be extremely helpful, extremely beneficial.

And so, the real goal of this is that you would be emboldened in your faith, and that you would be more confident that what you're holding in your hands is in fact God's infallible inherent word. That this is his revelation from heaven for you and I and for all creation. But before we try to make sense of this alarming insertion, I wanna begin by laying the groundwork for the truthfulness of the Bible. As I said, the Bible that you and I have, your copy of God's word, as long as it's a faithful translation, is in fact God's word. And we have both internal and external evidence that make that emphatically clear, how these ancient writings were passed down throughout the centuries and they in fact are God's truth.

And the transmission of these truths have been gloriously preserved. And they were penned, yes, by human authors, but human authors who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to communicate these things as a permanent witness for all generations. And the safeguarding of God's truth throughout time is a testimony and is a declaration that God himself makes in his word. So I know I told you to turn to Mark sixteen nine, it's because I want you to see that disclaimer, but now I ask you to turn to Psalm chapter 12 beginning in verse six. The psalmist says, by the Holy Spirit, the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

You, oh Lord, will keep them. You will guard us from this generation forever. You see what the Holy Spirit is saying through David? David is not only acknowledging that God's word is reliable. You have that number seven there, right?

The number of perfection. God's word has been purified. In other words, it is undeniably reliable. He also though, at the same time, celebrates God's ability to preserve that purified word. Isn't that what he says here at the end?

He says, yes, it's purified seven times, but in verse seven, you, oh Lord, will keep them. You will keep them. So not only have you granted revelation to mankind that can be relied on, but you've also kept them for mankind for every age and every generation. So we have the purity of God's word, but also the preservation of God's word. And history testifies of God's providential hand that has indeed preserved his word until 2024, and it will be preserved until the return of Jesus Christ.

Despite unfavorable circumstances and natural conditions, despite fierce persecution, literary criticism, archaeological discoveries, philosophical assaults and scientific claims, the Bible has endured and risen above all scrutiny. All scrutiny. And I would like to offer a few points on the history of how your Bible came about, how my Bible came about in a very short frame of time. This subject deserves weeks and weeks of study, but I'm gonna try to cram it in in one Sunday service for you to at least leave satisfied and curious enough to explore this further, only to make your confidence that much more concrete. The Bible didn't start with the YouVersion app on your phone.

You know that, I hope. I hope we all know that. No. It was originally written on papyri, and parchment scrolls, and codices. Codices is another word for books.

So when you hear me reference in this next forty five minutes, the word codex, all that means is book. So papyrus, parchment scrolls, codices, codices, and they were all manually, manually copied by scribes. So when you hear the word manuscript, all that means is something that has been written down by hand. Man, that's all it means. Manuscript.

Something that's been penned down by hand, specifically by a scribe. And so we have that understanding of the origination of the Bible. The New Testament was primarily written in Greek, though some of it is Aramaic, and we study those Aramaic verses in the gospel market itself. And the Old Testament is primarily in Hebrew, though there are some parts of the book of Daniel and the book of Ezra that are Aramaic as well. Now, the original manuscripts, the autographs, meaning the things that these actual authors wrote down, we don't have any of it.

That being said and there's there's reasons why we don't have them. Good reasons too. But I can't get into that at this moment. What we do have though are very early manuscript copies of the originals. And when you look into that, you realize that the biblical evidence with manuscripts is unparalleled.

Unparalleled in comparison to any other ancient document. Both in terms of the number of manuscripts that we have, and also the time gap between the original writings and those copies of the original writings. And so I wanna consider some of the highlights by way of comparison of how the Bible stands out. It's this race of evidence and reliability in terms of historical documents, the Bible is in first place, always has been, always will be, and everybody else is far behind. So I want you to first consider the number of manuscripts that we have concerning the Bible, namely the New Testament.

So in the New Testament, we have in the Greek language alone, around 5,800 manuscripts. Now when you consider the Latin, the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic and the Armenian manuscripts, it brings the total of New Testament manuscripts to around 25,000. Now this makes the New Testament the most attested ancient document in terms of manuscript evidence available. The most. And that is again confirmed when you compare with other historical pieces that you've probably studied in high school and college, that nobody seems to debate about, that nobody seems to push up against.

These things that I'm about to bring up as way of example, pale in comparison to the mountain of evidence that we have in the Bible. Have you read Homer's Iliad? One of the most well preserved works of ancient literature. It's an epic Greek poem. We have around 1,800 surviving manuscripts of Homer's Iliad, which is impressive, but when you compare it to 25,000, 800 manuscripts.

What about Caesar's Gallic wars? Manuscript evidence for Caesar's work is much more limited with only about 10 surviving manuscripts. There are recent discoveries that might add to that number, but for the longest time, 10 surviving manuscripts, the earliest manuscript dating to around nine hundred years after its original composition. Tacitus' histories and annals is considered some of the most reliable sources to Roman history, and we have only two manuscripts. One from the ninth century, one from the eleventh century.

And then we can go on and on and on about these things that people study, that scholars praise, but what we can conclude based on the bible in comparison, the fact that it was so widespread in terms of the languages and the regions means that the early Christian community really believed in their message. And they really wanted the world to know about it. And when you compare these manuscripts, there are numerous variations, none of them discrediting the doctrines of our faith. And again, if you read any of those manuscripts, if you if you compiled the Bible based on any of those, you're gonna come to the same core messages that you have in your Bible today. And so that says something about not just the attitude of the church concerning the Bible, but also God's miraculous preservation of protection of those manuscripts.

It speaks about it. You can't deny it. But that's just the amount. Consider the dating of these New Testament manuscripts. The earliest fragment, I say fragment, piece of a New Testament manuscript is the John Ryland's papyrus.

Otherwise known as p 52. And this fragment dates to January. Listen, only thirty to forty years after the original gospel of John was penned. And what you find there in p 52 is that on the front, you have some verses of John 18, and on the back, you have verses of John 18, and the latter part verses 37 to 38, whereas the front is 31 to 33. Now when it comes to complete New Testament, talking about the whole library of the New Testament, you have two manuscripts.

There are codexes. The first is called Codex Sina Catus and the other is Codex Vaticanus. And they are dated to the fourth century, meaning around 300 to three fifty AD. Just a few centuries after the new testament was originally written, you have entire complete libraries of it. That's fascinating.

And we're gonna come back to those two specific manuscripts shortly when it comes to Mark 16 trying to understand it. Let's compare it to other historical documents. I reference Homer's Iliad. Right? The surviving manuscripts date from nine to tenth century AD.

And they're from the Byzantine family and they represent a significant gap. You know what the gap is for Homer's Iliad? Twelve hundred years from its original writing. One thousand two hundred years. The earliest manuscript of Plato's Timaeus dates around September about, again, twelve hundred years after he wrote it, which was in the fourth century BC.

You've heard of Plato, I'm sure you've heard of Aristotle's works. Like Plato, the discoveries of his manuscripts were around the ninth century AD, but his original writings were in the fourth century BC. So you're talking about leaps of centuries over a thousand years, and yet we honor these things. We praise these things being preserved. Yet the Bible gets more criticism than anything else.

But any honest scholar or student can see that this is staggering. This is overwhelming. So we talked briefly about the amount of manuscripts. We talked briefly about the dating, but let's talk about the accuracy of these manuscripts. Now I touched a lot about the New Testament manuscript.

Let me make a brief comment about the Old Testament. One of the most significant discoveries of our Old Testament were the Dead Sea Scrolls. Discovered in 1947 in the caves, some caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea. What you have with these Dead Sea Scrolls is marvelous. You have almost every book of the old testament that date from February to January.

And what they showed is the remarkable, almost fanatical work of these scribes who wrote down these copies. You've probably heard this before that there were some scribes who are believed to have so treated the transmission of Old Testament Hebrew scriptures with a sacredness, that they would write one letter in the Hebrew, and then we go take a bath, come back and write the next letter, they would go back and take a bath, write the next letter. That's how much some of these scribes esteemed the writings of these Old Testament books. And the pristine work is seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the most significant discoveries is what is known as the Isaiah Scroll.

The code for that is one q I s a or ISA, short for Isaiah. And with these codes like p 52, one q a, like, what's that all about? Usually those codes, all they're doing is, they're giving an abbreviation of maybe where it was found or the the timing of it. And so one cue speaks of one of the caves in Qumran, and it contained the Isaiah scrolls. The book of Isaiah, and it's captivated scholars and serious students of the Bible.

Why? Because it is a nearly complete manuscript of the book of Isaiah that you have in your Bible today. Can you imagine that? So something that is dated centuries before the time of Christ important discovery because it closely lines what we have and it demonstrates the accuracy with which the Hebrew Bible was copied over the centuries. So let me summarize this briefly.

We possess tens of thousands of manuscript copies of the Bible, ranging from the first to the fifteenth century AD for the New Testament, and from the fourth century BC to the fifteenth century AD for the Old Testament. So for New Testament, we have manuscripts from the first century to the fifteenth century. Old Testament, we have manuscripts from the fourth century BC to the fifteenth century AD. And these manuscripts, yes, if we're honest, they do contain some variations. But they're all minor.

They don't compromise the validity, the the accuracy, the essence of the Krishna message. It's untouched. And if you didn't know, there is an entire academic field dedicated to discovering these things and to assessing the most accurate version of the original text. This academic discipline is called textual criticism. Textual criticism is a science, and is a science that seeks to establish the correct text of an ancient document.

And listen, it's a it's applied both to secular works and to sacred works. So the same rules and the same methodologies apply. And generally what happens with a textual critic, those who are part of that kind of discipline, is that they they study the transmission of these copies. And they compare them and examine them in their variations. And there are different methodologies, different schools of thought that try to assess which one is most reliable, which one can be rejected or questioned, and what other ones can be more trusted.

And it's important to acknowledge that there are different methods. I can't get into the different methods now, although we could, but I wanna bring it up to you because it helps us when we come to our Bibles. Just knowing that there are different methods helps us come to our Bibles and understand why there are certain passages that are handled differently by certain scholars. And that's where we are now led to when it comes to Mark 16 verse nine. Where you read in brackets that some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain chapter 16 verses nine to 20.

And that's why I wanna explain to you how the longer ending a mark is put into question by some of these scholars. And and this again is a subject that requires hours upon hours to just really scratch the surface. My goal again today is not to make you drink out of a fire hose, it's to have enough for you to understand the general grasp of this conversation, for you to feel satisfied, but also for you to be encouraged to potentially consider it further for yourself. So when it comes to those questioning the latter portion of the gospel of Mark, there are two main arguments that people make, that scholars make. And the first one is is obvious because it's in the bible.

That some of the earliest manuscripts don't contain it. Now remember how I referenced you two complete new testament manuscripts that are highly prized and praised? That is what these scholars are referring to when it comes to this disclaimer at the end here of Mark chapter 16. The argument is simple. Those are some of the earliest, in fact, they are the earliest manuscripts that we have to the new testament, and both of those omit verses nine to verses 20.

And there is another smaller manuscript that also doesn't contain the longer ending of Mark, but it's not as significant as the other two. Nevertheless, we will include that in the count of manuscripts that don't include those final verses. So that that's really the argument is, well, look, if we have these manuscripts and they date the closest to the original time when they were written, then we have every reason to question it. And that's where you have one school of thought among scholars that's saying the older, the better. The older, the more confident we can be about what was there and then in the original time, in the original writings.

But here's what's so interesting. Of all our Greek manuscripts, you have to listen very carefully to this, we have close to 1,650 that do contain what I will call the longer ending of Mark. So you have just over 1,500 Greek manuscripts that do have verses nine to 20, whereas in comparison, you have three that omit it. So what do we do with that? Well, if you do it in terms of percentage, it means that 99.8% of the existing Greek manuscripts that we have contain the longer ending of mark.

Now for some scholars, that doesn't matter because remember, they have that kind of conviction. The older, the better. It's not about about the majority of the text, it's more about the age of the text. But at the same time, those scholars who advocate the earlier manuscripts, you can tell that they're reluctant. They're reluctant to completely exclude the longer ending of mark.

Do you know how I know they are reluctant? Because they include as a footnote in your bible. So they're hesitant. Because you can't deny the fact that there are so much in terms of historicity and copies of manuscript that do contain it. What are you gonna do with that?

So there's a struggling there, there's a wrestling there. Now there are some who are bold enough to say, it's not inspired scripture. Like, you should not treat it as you would Mark sixteen one to seven, or any other part of the Bible. You should treat it as maybe like an apocryphal book or some kind of history book that might shed some light on the Bible, but you shouldn't treat verses nine to 20 as scripture. Others more hesitant And they'll say, okay, look.

It's undeniable. It's there. It's there in terms of the majority manuscript, so let's let's put it in in our English transition. Let people know that it's not part of the earliest ones though, and they're satisfied in that. And that's why if you have like a New King James version, if you're a person who reads the New King James, and you come to that same place in Mark 16 verse nine, they're a little bit more transparent and a little bit more accurate in their disclaimer of those verses.

Let me quote it to you from the New King James marginal note. Verses nine to 20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. And this is what the New King James says, They are lacking in Codex Sina Catus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them. So they're being a little bit more transparent, the New King James. Whereas other ones, including the EAC will say, some of the earliest manuscripts don't include them.

And people kind of they get intimidated by that or even concerned. So then for those scholars who who don't think that the longer ending of Mark belongs there or it's not autographed by Mark or is not part of the original text, what's their theory about the longer ending then? Because again, you can't deny all the manuscripts that do have them. Those manuscripts, the 1,650 that do have them, they date later than the codus Vaticanus and codus Sinaiticus. Right?

So here's the theory of those who think that that's not Those verses are not part of the original. They were added by scribes. They were added by scribes. And why would scribes add verses nine to verse 20? Because if you don't add them, the gospel of Mark ends in Mark 16 verse eight.

So let's read verse eight. Let's read it from verse six to get context. And he said to them, do not be alarmed. You see Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. He is risen.

He is not here. See the place where they laid him, but go tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him just as he told you. And they went out and fled from the tomb for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid. The book closes.

So the theory is this, the gospel can't end this way. There's no way that the last thought that Mark wants to convey in his gospel account is that the woman were terrified. And so the idea is scribes saw this and they go, I think we need to add to this. And they borrowed from Luke, and they borrowed from Matthew, and they borrowed from John, and so some claim that the addition here, the insertion are just a kind of a compilation of concluding thoughts from the other gospel accounts. So that's the theory for those who believe that those verses are omitted.

But external manuscript evidence is not the only argument proponents of the shorter ending make. There's a second major one. It's internal. Saying, what do you mean? Well, again, when you go back to Mark sixteen nine to 20, what you'll discover here, not so much in the English as much as in the Greek, is that this is the claim, it reads differently than Mark's previous writings, in the previous chapters and verses.

So they'll make arguments like, there are words in verses nine to 20 that Mark never uses in the gospel account. And and you can imagine how this is highly debated and contested among scholars. And the reason why is because there are other long portions of Mark where Mark uses Greek words for the first time too, but we don't discount them either. Do we? So there's back and forth here, but the main point is this, from verse eight to verse nine is kind of a clunky transition.

This is what they'll say. Right? So look at verse eight again. They were afraid, and then look at verse nine. Now when he arose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene from whom he had cast out seven demons.

So they say, it's kind of an awkward transition. You're almost like reintroducing the resurrection. And you're reintroducing Mary Magdalene, though she's already been introduced to us. So this is the claims that people are, I'm just I'm just relaying it. And so they'll again, nitpick on certain things and bring out certain words, and ideas and flow of thought, and the argument is, it seems to be different, it seems to be added, it seems to be maybe somebody who worked in it and tried to complete it.

Now, I don't wanna get into every single debate about why some believe this and why some believe that. I just wanna give you the two main arguments, like, if you talk to scholars, they're gonna tell you those are the two main arguments. There's an external point, in terms of the early manuscripts not having it, and internal that, you know, let me show you here how I think Mark's words at the end don't match his his consistent tone of voice throughout. You might be wondering where I stand on this issue. And that's where I wanna provide an overview of why I personally believe that the longer ending of Mark should be included, should be included in our bibles and recognized as authentic.

I have three points. Three points to why I believe verses nine to 20 is something that we should honor and recognize as holy scripture. The first one is the manuscript evidence. Now I already told you about how the majority, 99.8% of Greek manuscripts contain it, but I'm not gonna make that simple argument that there's more, so it's better. Scholars, some scholars who also believe in the longer ending have done a wonderful job examining codus Vaticanus and codus Sinaiticus, and they've made pretty convincing cases that those who penned those manuscripts were aware of the longer ending, but didn't include it for speculative reasons.

So I mean, this isn't this is a sermon, this isn't a presentation, this isn't a class, but if you if you want to, go home, Google codex Vaticanus specifically, and what you'll discover is, at the ending of Mark, in that parchment, that page of his book, there are empty columns. Now what's unique about those empty columns is, they're foreign to every other book in the New Testament. So the argument is, why does Codex Vaticanus leave empty columns right after verse eight? And some scholars believe look, you can actually fit if you if you pen Mark's writings based on that copy of the manuscript the same way, you can fit Mark sixteen nine to 20 perfectly in those empty columns. So we don't really know why.

Some again speculate, But there is sufficient evidence, that's just one argument to make, that even within those early manuscripts, they they were at least aware that there was a longer version out there. And so I would say manuscript evidence. Beyond that, point number two, and this to me is one of the most convincing points, is that it was widely referenced, recognized, and circulated in the early church. I'm talking about the last part, verses nine to 20 in Mark 16. So the oldest manuscripts date from the, what, fourth century, codas Vaticanus, codas Sinaiticus.

I don't know how many times I'll be able to say that without tripping over my words, so bear with me. So the earliest new complete New Testament manuscript, those two, which are fascinating discoveries, they omit them, but they are not the oldest historical pieces of evidence that reference the ending of Mark. So you have what is called patristic evidence. Patristic fathers, church fathers, those church fathers are recognized as the disciples of the disciples that we read of in the new testament. Right?

And they're disciples. When you read some of these church fathers, what you will discover is that they reference Mark sixteen nine to 20. You're talking about second century. So at least a century before those two codexes, you have church fathers that reference and make allusions to the longer ending of Mark. One of them is Irenaeus.

Let me quote him to you. Who wrote in his third book called, Against Heresies, between year January, January, at least a century before Vaticanus was produced. And he wrote this, quote, Also, towards the conclusion of his gospel, Mark says, so then after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was received up into heaven and sits on the right hand of God. This is an illusion and a reference to Mark sixty nine twenty, specifically Mark 16 verse 19. We were told that he ascended and he was seated at the right hand of God.

You have another second century writer by the name of Justin Martyr, who wrote in his writings called the first apology using Mark sixteen twenty. You have Tatian, another second century writer who was a pupil, a student of Justin Martyr, who includes the longer ending of Mark in his work, Diatessaron. Diatessaron was an ancient writing where Tatian sought to bring all four gospel accounts and merge them into a chronological text. And when he brought that together, he actually included Mark sixteen nine to 20. Another known text, excuse me if I butcher these, is called, which was written before the year January, providing yet another fourth witness by making an allusion to the longer ending of Mark.

So right there, I'm providing you four witnesses to the longer ending of Mark in the second century. This is important, because that means that the longer ending of Mark was being circulated in the church and recognized as authoritative. Okay. It's not found in the earliest complete New Testament manuscripts, but it's found among these early Christians. And I can go on and on to mention the support of patristic works in the two hundreds and three hundreds and four hundreds, but one of the most interesting ones that I wanna bring up to you is actually from a non Christian.

You actually had a Roman philosopher by the name of Hierocles, who quoted a longer ending of Mark, chapter 16 verses nine to 20, as a part of his critique of Christianity in the early fourth century. And the conclusion there is that he actually made a comment about where we're gonna read in a moment how Christians can drink poison and nothing will happen. And the case that he makes in his critique is, well then okay, let's have Christians drink their let's have their leaders drink poison and see if what their bible says is true. You know, what's funny is that even in modern day debate among Muslims, Muslims make that same argument. Oh, if your bible is true, your bible says that in the Mark sixteenth to drink poison and you'll survive.

So here's some poison. Drink it. That's nothing new. That came back from the fourth century. So you have a listen, this is the point that I'm trying to make though.

You have a non Christian who critique Christianity, who made a reference to the ending of Mark, that scholars today believe should be omitted, but in fact was recognized apparently by the early church for him to make that reference. Does that make sense? I hope so. Now if you want more of this, if you want more meat, if you wanna sink your teeth even deeper, you come see me after the service and I could provide some resources. But here's my final reason, brief reason again, this is just overview.

This is just overview I'm giving you. I talked to you about manuscript evidence, not just the amount, but even within the earliest ones that omit it, you can make a case that they were at least aware of the ending of Mark. We have early church even before those earliest complete new testament manuscripts. And lastly, this is this is a pretty practical, it's theological but it's practical. The final reason why I believe it should be included is because what it teaches is completely consistent with the new testament.

There's nothing out of place there. There's nothing that shatters our faith. There's nothing there that contradicts the tenants of our belief system. So why don't we read it? Let's begin in verse nine, down to verse 20.

Mark sixteen nine, now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourn and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things, he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

Afterward, he appeared to the 11 themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe. In my name, they will cast out demons.

They will speak in new tongues. They will pick up serpents with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them. They will lay their hands on the sick and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God and they went out and preached everywhere while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs. Now if you've read the gospels before, the entirety of the gospel accounts, then a lot of what Mark says in those verses echoes.

Right? I mean, if you review it, then you'll know that, for example, when you come here to verse 10, she went and told those who had been with him as they mourned and wept. You'll find that in Matthew and in John. Right? And we also see the skepticism in verse 11 of the disciples.

They would not believe it. Look at verse 12. And after these things, he appeared in another form to two of them and they were walking into the country. Where is that found? The end of Luke, with those two who are walking to Emmaus.

And at first, when the disciples heard their report, they also were skeptical. We read here that the Lord appeared to the 11 themselves and he rebuked them for the unbelief and hardness of heart. We see him do that in other gospels as well, where he gently rebukes them. Verse 15, where he tells to go into all the world, do we not see that in Matthew? Now where things get interesting is about these signs.

These signs and what Jesus says immediately preceding these signs. So that's where I want us to spend some time. Look at verse 16. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. So, how do we make sense of this?

Because it's a verse like this, and in verse seventeen and eighteen where we read these signs that has caused some people to be skeptical even before these manuscript debates. In other words, some people that believe these verses shall be omitted, they don't say it outright, but when you read their arguments, they show that they actually have a preconceived bias already. They they already have this, difficulty grasping and applying these truths, and so when it came to this debate, it just made a way for them to put into question. It was almost like, okay, I'm more willing to question these verses because I already think that this is problematic and this is strange for Christian Christianity to begin with. But what seems to be problematic and uncomfortable is in fact, consistent.

It's a very dangerous practice to look at parts of the bible that may disturb you, make you uncomfortable and put into question because of your bias. Very dangerous. Right? It doesn't matter if you're if you're a scholar and if you have the whole alphabet beside your name. That doesn't matter.

But it's amazing how some of these guys reveal themselves. But I wanna make the case again that this is something that we see in our bibles. Number one, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. So you have some people who advocate that this promotes baptismal regeneration. In other words, if you're gonna be saved, you need to get baptized.

Why? Because he says here, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. But here's what's interesting, and remember this, whenever you study the bible, when you and I ever come to a verse that seems to vary or challenge a biblical doctrine that is consistent throughout the bible, you never make a doctrine from an isolated text. Never. And And this is not just something that we see in Mark 16, is it not?

There are other place in the bible where when you read it alone, it seems to I I Is that saying what I think it says? So what's our discipline? That you take a verse and you compare it to the rest of scripture. That you you bring into account the entirety of the Bible to bring you to a conclusion. Not from one verse or two verses, but the whole library of divine revelation before you come to a conclusion.

What holds more weight? Does this line up with other very clear passages? Does does this verse support baptismal regeneration, based on what others have to say about it in the Bible? So we we can't just take one verse and make a whole theological dogma out of it. You have to make the practice of looking at the entirety of the Bible.

That's not just true for Mark sixteen sixteen, that's true for any verse in the Bible. So that's the first thing. Right? And and let me mention even some clues within Mark sixteen sixteen. Notice it says, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

So in the positive, believe and be baptized, you'll be saved. But in the negative, if you don't believe, you will not be saved. Why didn't he say if you don't believe and don't get baptized? So all this really takes is context and careful reading of our Bibles. So this is that's just one internal clue.

We haven't even explored the neighboring text. So first things first, whenever you see something that seems to be challenging, it seems to even be contradictory or paradoxical, always take into account the entirety of the bible before you come to any conclusions. And that's certainly the case here from Mark sixteen sixteen. But it's the next verse, the exciting juicy stuff that people really wanna talk about. And these signs will accompany those who believe.

In my name, they will cast out demons, they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up serpents with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them. They will lay their hands on the sick and they will recover. Can I ask you a simple question? Do you see these signs following the disciples after Jesus ascended to heaven? Simple question.

You don't have to be a scholar. Yes. We do see them casting out demons. Do we speak see them speaking in new tongues? Yes.

You do see them speaking in new tongues. Do you even see them interacting with snakes? Not like the crazy people on YouTube. You know, the snake handling services. I'm not talking about that.

But there is one account in Acts 28 when Paul was in the island called Malta. And as he was feeding the fire with dry sticks, a snake came out and bit his hand. And what happened? Did he collapse? No.

He survived, and it opened a way for the people in Malta to hear the gospel. It was a sign. Now the thing that stands out of all these signs is what? The drinking of any deadly poison. Right?

We don't see that necessarily in in a specific account or narrative in the New Testament. But here's the point that I wanna make primarily, is that this is this is a overall message that the Lord is trying to convey. Yes, he's being specific, you can't deny that. But there's a context that we have to honor here. So let me give you a personal experience.

Many many many many years ago. Right? I I mentioned debates with Muslims and how they bring up this particular versus a challenge to Christians. I remember the first time I came across a debate on this issue. It it was just a general debate about the reliability of the Bible, the historicity of the Bible.

Again, it was just something that was in passing. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I just came to the end in the closing remarks. I remember seeing one of these Muslim Imams, and the crowd was filled with other Muslims looking at this kind of sheepish, I believe, scholarly man who was a Christian, and he literally pulled out a bottle of poison. And he looked at this man, and he says, your Bible says this, and he quoted Mark sixteen seventeen to 18.

So why don't you prove to us right here, right now that your bible is true and drink this poison? And the crowd began to cheer and this man just gently received the bottle and he stood up quietly. And you know what he did? I remember it so vividly. He began to explain the case of how verses nine to 20 are omitted from the earliest manuscripts.

And it was just really being drowned out by the crowd. You you don't have to make that argument if you just properly interpret what Mark is saying here. So I remember, I I freshly saved, didn't know a thing about what I just presented to you in the past half an hour or forty five minutes. Didn't know one thing. I just came back to my bible, maybe looked at different versions, and here's what I read, and this is is this is even more clear if you have the new King James and the King James.

Look again at verse 17, and these signs, and I'll quote it to you in the new King James and King James, and these signs will follow those who believe. And remember this this specific thought race through my mind. It says that these signs will follow those who believe, not that these believers will follow such signs. Right there. There.

Just right there. And then it dawned on me. To challenge a promise of God is called testing God. And that same kind of logic and argumentation and challenge is no different than Satan himself. Who told Jesus what?

In the wilderness, he quoted Psalm 91 concerning angelic protection. He says, why don't you jump off the temple and see if this is true? Do not test the Lord your God. So to take a verse like this and to entertain the idea that we should try to see if God will come through in a miraculous way because the Bible presents the possibility of his promise of coming through for us is Antichrist. One.

Two, look at the context. Is the context here for us in a service to come together and pull out snakes out of a box and share some kool aid and see if we're all gonna be okay? No. The context is world evangelization. The context says world missions.

The context is you disciples who invade foreign areas that have never heard the truth, never seen the light, when you go, you can know that I will empower you in a special way and I will protect you in a special way. That's exactly what Mark is saying here. I'm with you, and I'm gonna tell you some of the ways I'm gonna be with you. That I'm gonna see you working for my namesake, and I will work with you. Look at verse 20.

And they went out and preached everywhere while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the message by accompanying signs. So this is not about us chasing snakes and chasing poison and going to debates or coming to services and saying, the Lord said we can do this, let's do this. This is about a group of people who are going into very dangerous and hostile territory. And as they go preaching the message, the Lord promised, I'm gonna be with you. I'm gonna empower you and I'm gonna protect you.

And now that doesn't mean that this is gonna be signs that can be performed on demand or gonna be consistent without any other option, because the same disciples would be murdered, and they would be subject to the elements. This is something that we teach in this church, that as long as you're walking the will of God, and as long as you are living for his name's sake, you are in essence immortal until he calls you home. As long as you're not foolish, and as long as you're not living in sin, as long as you're abiding by the truth, the Lord will empower you, and the Lord will protect you until the end. That's the essence of what Mark is saying here at the end. And so I remember realizing that early in my walk.

It doesn't say that we will follow these signs. It says that they will follow us. And I don't determine when they follow me. My job is simply to do what these disciples were called to do, that's preach the word. And if God wants to empower me in a special way, so that he can confirm that message, so be it.

And if unknown to me, I'm in a dangerous place, and I'm serving the Lord, and there's an attack whether through natural elements or through my persecutors, I'm gonna trust that God's gonna protect me. And if he doesn't protect me, it means my mission is done and I'm going home. So when you properly interpret it, you see that there's a different understanding here. Now, this is not my habit to quote church fathers and talk about manuscripts. It's it's my joy to preach what the Bible has to say, But we have to continue with the service.

So let me just bring to you one thought that blessed me from the ending of Mark, because I'm gonna share it to you because I believe it is God's authoritative word. Notice verse 20. And they went out and preached everywhere while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs. You've been with us since the beginning of Mark and you heard throughout the gospel of Mark that Mark seeks to portray the Lord Jesus Christ in a certain way in comparison to the other gospel accounts. Mark seeks to portray Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the perfect servant of God.

Remember? And what I find so fitting and so appropriate is that when you come to the last verse of the gospel of Mark, what do you find the Lord Jesus Christ doing? Working. He's working. He's still serving, but this time he's serving with the servants of God to advance his kingdom.

So if you wanna talk about thematic consistency, if you wanna talk about whether this last part, coincides and works with the rest of it, I argue that's just one example of how it does. Because throughout Mark, we're seeing Jesus working, serving, using his hands, less parables, more miracles. And now when you come to the final thought, the last snapshot of Christ that we get, even in his resurrection is a in his ascension, he's doing what? Working. Working with his servants to advance his message.

A message that is believed on today, a message that still saves, a message that is true and will always be true. Do you believe the gospel of Jesus Christ? Because what we're about to partake in together is for those who have put their trust in this message. It is reliable, it's undeniable. Yes, there's historical proof behind it.

Yes, it eclipses any other history. Historical documents historical assertion, historical event, and God has done that in his providence, but not just providence, this gospel has power. It has power. It has power to save you from the power of sin. It has the power to eliminate the penalty of sin, and the way in which you experience what is, yes, historically recognized and and found in documents, especially in our Bibles, is when you believe it by faith.

You see, no matter how much evidence you're given, you're gonna come to a place where you have to take a leap of faith. And if you think that's foreign or that's a cop out, you do it with almost everything in life. When it comes to looking back at the past, history, the books you love, the documentaries that you watch, The with all those things, you're giving an element of faith. You're taking a leap of trust. I'm trusting those who put this together to say, this is what happened before my lifetime.

But more than manuscripts, more than church fathers, anything else, though those are poor men, those are paramount. We don't have blind faith. The testimonies of lies that have been transformed by this message is incredible. And I want you to have that testimony. And again, the way you have that testimony is when you repent and believe.

When you realize that there is a man who who is named Jesus Christ, he was from Nazareth, but he was unlike any other man. He was perfect. You couldn't document his a sin in his word, in his action, his deeds, and his reactions. The bible testifies that he was internally pure, incorruptible. Even his accusers at his trial were fumbling and stumbling trying to find something to bring against him, but he was not a martyr.

He was not a victim. At the hands of cruel people, he voluntarily laid down his life. He laid down his life because understanding our humanity, our sinfulness and our bankruptcy before God, it would require a sacrifice. A sacrifice that would please God in his justice, and that would be able to be applicable to all men of all time. And the only way that one person could cover the sins of all humanity from past, present, and future if that person was eternal.

If he suspended and superseded time, if he was above all of those things, and and yet became a man so that he can mediate on behalf of humanity, this is the uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ. There is none like him. And what the Bible demands is that you realize that he is unique, that he is fully God, fully man, truly God, truly man. But it wasn't just a stunt, it wasn't just a three year visit in the earth, it was a mission. A mission to bring you out of the muck and mire and pull you out of the place where you will receive the wrath of God, apart from Christ.

So let me just let me just speak plain and clear. Have you at any point made a conscious decision that you understood what Jesus Christ of Nazareth did for you, and that you accepted as a free gift? Have you ever done that? If you've never done that, I say this in love, you stand condemned before God. You do.

Every sin that you've ever committed will be brought up on that final day, and you'll have to pay with eternal punishment. But at the same time, if you realize that God and his love for you, he will never compromise his justice. He'll never ever ever diminish his holiness, but at the same time, his love is just as fierce. And if you recognize, yes, his holiness, but also his love that he wants to rescue from his wrath, rescue from eternal punishment, and he drank the wrath of God himself, why would you deny it? And why wouldn't you accept the forgiveness that Christ offers you, and everything that you've ever done, everything that you've ever committed will be washed clean.

And you will not stand wondering if you will have eternal life, you can stand confident that you have been forgiven for all your sins, and that God will keep you, and he will preserve you, and he will walk with you in this life until he brings you home into his presence forever. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And why we do this is because we're about to line up now and take these emblems, a piece of bread and a cup with the fruit of the vine to remember, it's not because of what I've done. It's not because what I performed. It's not because of my righteousness that I'm saved.

Because of what he's done in his body, it's because he shed his blood that I am forgiven. I have eternal life because of what he's done in his flesh, and what he's done in his sacrifice. We have come to celebrate our redemption in Jesus Christ. But this table is reserved only for those who believe in that message that I just preached. And so if you're a person here visiting, we're so glad that you're here.

But I respectfully ask that you observe, and don't don't participate. This is an ordinance that's only been given to the church. And believer, if you do believe in this message but your walk is not consistent with that message, consciously, you're living in a way where you're justifying sin. You would please your master more if you pause today, and you reflected and repented than if you partook of this. And so I'm I'm gonna ask us to just pause now, and we're gonna do this in a moment.

The praise team can come up, but when it comes to this table, we're called to look in different places. One, we're supposed to look at Christ, remember what he's done. Two, we're supposed to look at one another, and remember that we are one body like this bread symbolizes. So if there's any friction, any unresolved issues, You please more you please God more by reconciling than of eating, or at least reconciling before you eat. And lastly, you look within.

Also examine yourself. Right? And so look to the lord, look to one another, now look within and take this time to say, lord, is my practice matching my profession? Lord, help me live for you. Help me live the way you called me to live, and help me rest in your truth.

Help me please you also knowing that you finished this for me, and that I walk from grace, not for grace. So just in silence, I I encourage you to if you need to bow your head, examine your heart. We're gonna sing and then we're gonna eat.