CHAPTER XVI

Outline of Chapter 16

Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do

B. The Resurrection

16:1–8 The Lord Risen; The Women Surprised

THE PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO MARK 16:9–20

BRIEF NOTES ON THE LONG ENDING (Mark 16:9–20)

16:9–11 Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene

16:12, 13 His Appearance to Two Disciples

16:14–18 The Great Commission and The Signs

16:19, 20 Christ’s Ascension

16:1–8 The Lord Risen; The Women Surprised

Cf. Matt. 28:1–8; Luke 24:1–12; John 20:1–10

16 1 Now when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, when the sun was risen, they were coming to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to each other, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 But looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (They had been alarmed about the stone) for it was very large.⁸³⁹ 5 And as they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting at the right, and they were alarmed.⁸⁴⁰ 6 He said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you.’ ”

8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment were holding them in their grip; and they said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid.

Mark’s account resembles Matthew’s (28:1–8) more closely than it does the resurrection story as told by Luke or by John. The four reports vary with respect to several minor points. For the most part the variations can be easily reconciled. This holds with respect to such items as “when the sun was risen” (Mark 16:2), “a young man” (verse 5), and “they said nothing” (verse 8).

Matthew intersperses the story of the arrival of the women with a reference to the earthquake. The dramatic descent of an angel, and the terror experienced by the guards (28:2–4). In verses 9, 10 Matthew records the appearance of the risen Christ himself to the women.

To the names of the two women mentioned by Matthew and the three by Mark, Luke adds “Joanna … and the others with them” (24:10). He records the disbelief with which the apostles greeted the women’s story (verse 11). In verse 12 he briefly summarizes Peter’s experience at the tomb. John enlarges on this theme: Peter and John running to the tomb, after Peter had been told by Mary Magdalene, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him” (20:1–10).

1. Now when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.⁸⁴¹

The sabbath was ended. Accordingly it is now Saturday after 6 P.M. The bazaars are open again. So Mark relates that the three women who have been mentioned before (see 15:40), and two of whom were mentioned in the preceding verses (15:47), purchased spices in order that without any further delay they might go to the tomb the very next morning to anoint Jesus’ body. It is true that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already wound linen bandages around the body, strewing in a mixture of myrrh and aloes. But the dead body had not as yet been anointed. The living body had been anointed (14:3–9) but not the dead one. Besides, a week had gone by since that other anointing had taken place.

2. Very early on the first day of the week,⁸⁴² when the sun was risen,⁸⁴³ they were coming to the tomb. They were evidently afraid that decomposition would take place if they should wait any longer.

As to the time when these women came: Mark says “when the sun was risen,” Matt. 28:1 “at dawn,” Luke “at early dawn,” and John “while it was still dark.” Probable solution: although it was still dark when the women started out, the sun had risen when they arrived at the tomb.

It is true that these women should have paid more attention to the Lord’s repeated prediction that he would rise again on the third day. On the other hand, while we may criticize their lack of sufficient faith—a lack which they shared with the male disciples—let us not overlook their exceptional love and loyalty. They were at Calvary when Jesus died, in Joseph’s garden when their Master was buried, and now very early in the morning, here they are once more, in order to anoint the body. Meanwhile, where were the eleven?

3, 4. And they were saying to each other, Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? But looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (They had been alarmed about the stone) for it was very large.⁸⁴⁴

On the way toward the tomb the women became worried about the huge stone in front of the tomb’s entrance. They asked each other, “Who will roll it away for us?” But suddenly they saw—probably at a turn in the path—that the heavy stone had already been removed. What had taken place? Matthew, by divine inspiration, supplies the answer: “Suddenly there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, stepped forward, rolled away the stone and was sitting on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his garment white as snow” (28:2, 3).

The interesting item about the alarm of the women before they saw that the stone had already been removed is found only in Mark’s Gospel.

5. And as they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting at the right, and they were alarmed.

Why did the angel have to remove the stone? Not to enable Jesus to make his way out—for see John 20:19, 26—but to enable these women, and also Peter and John, to enter the tomb.

By the time the women had reached the tomb, the “angel” (thus Matthew) had entered the tomb. Here in Mark the angel is called “a young man dressed in a white robe.” Compare this with Matthew’s description “his garment white as snow.” It is clear that Matthew and Mark are describing the same heavenly being. The fact that angels appear to humans in human form, so that an angel can also be called a man, and is even able to express himself in human language, is clear to every Bible student. See Gen. 18:2, 16; 19:1 f.; Judg. 6:12 f.; 13:3, 6; Ezek, 9:2. In connection with the story of Manoah (Judg. 13) does not even Josephus mention “an angel of God in the likeness of a comely and tall youth” See Antiquities V.277. It is therefore entirely unwarranted to see a contradiction here between Matthew and Mark. See also above, on 14:51, 52. And as to Luke’s and John’s “two angels,” see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 990.

If the shape and general appearance of the tomb, as described in N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 444, is understood, the statement that the “young man” was sitting “at the right” will be clear. That the rolled away stone, the appearance of the inside of the tomb (in this connection see also John 20:6, 7), and the presence of “the young man” or “angel” caused the women to be “alarmed” or “greatly amazed”⁸⁴⁵ is understandable.

6. He said to them, Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him.

“Do not be alarmed,” says the young man to the women. What he means is, “Stop doing what you are doing, and instead rejoice, for this is a day of cheer.” He continues, “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene.”⁸⁴⁶ Yes, Jesus was indeed “the Nazarene,” the One who had spent most of his earthly life in Nazareth and voluntarily humbled himself unto death, even death upon a cross. But now “He is risen.” And to reassure the women who can hardly believe what they are seeing, the angel—for “the young man” was, after all, an angel—tenderly adds, “He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him.”

We might have expected a different message, for example, a stern rebuke, in view of the fact that these women showed by their action of coming to the tomb in order to anoint a dead body, that they had not taken seriously enough Jesus’ prediction of rising on the third day.

But now all is forgiven, blotted out by the risen Savior; for it must be borne in mind that it was not the heavenly messenger himself who had created this message of cheer. It was the risen One.

The place where they laid him, a declivity inside the huge tomb, is empty. This the women can see very well, for they have entered the tomb. Not only do they see how empty is this declivity but also how neatly arranged is everything around it: the linen bandages lying there, and the sweatband not lying with the linen bandages but neatly folded up and lying in a place by itself (John 20:6, 7).

The young man also conveys another message that had been given to him before he descended from heaven to earth. It reveals the same tender, forgiving love, namely, 7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead⁸⁴⁷ of you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you. Note: still “his disciples,” even though in the hour of bitter trial they had all left him and fled. Also note “and Peter,” and this in spite of those terrible denials, accompanied at times by curses. It is Mark, Peter’s interpreter, who has preserved for us this beautiful little touch.

Thus, very clearly and emphatically, Mark prepared the reader for expecting a manifestation of the risen Lord to his disciples, a kind of reunion. It is going to take place in Galilee, according to the promise of 14:28, repeated here in 16:7.

How was this promise fulfilled? The beginning of that story—definitely only the beginning, however—is told in verse 8. And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment⁸⁴⁸ were holding them in their grip; and they said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid. What Mark clearly states and means is that these women were thoroughly scared, profoundly shocked. To interpret their ekstasis (thus the Greek) to mean anything else than astonishment, bewilderment, being “beside themselves” with terror, is hardly correct. Yet this is done at times, the aim being to harmonize Matthew and Mark. Not that these two evangelists are actually in conflict. They are not. But in this particular passage Mark is not thinking about the women’s joy,⁸⁴⁹ but of their fear and astonishment. And it was because of this inner disposition, this mental state, that they not only fled away from the tomb, but also did not stop along the way to relate the cause of their fright to anyone. They had been rendered speechless. It is true that they were also filled with joy, but it is not Mark who mentions this. It is also true that when they had somewhat recovered from their mental terror they ran to deliver to the apostles the message that had been entrusted to them. But again it is not Mark who says this. It is true that Jesus himself in person revealed himself to the women. But on this subject, too, Mark is silent. And it is true that Jesus, in fulfilment of his and the angel’s message, actually met his followers in Galilee. However, here again Mark remains silent!

Mark leads us to expect great things, a marvelous reunion in Galilee, but then all of a sudden his message breaks off. Are we now blaming Mark? Not at all, as will become clear. What we, along with many other interpreters of various theological positions, are saying is that we probably do not have all that Mark wrote. This will become clearer when we study “the long ending” (verses 9–20).

On the other hand, Mark has given us a most vivid portrayal of Christ’s earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Mark’s Gospel is filled with unforgettable manifestations of Christ’s power, mercy, and love. The great lesson which we learn from the present section is that not only did Jesus rise victoriously from the grave, but in addition he revealed himself to be the same thoughtful, kind, and loving Lord he had shown himself to be in earlier days. For that good news we should be very thankful.

The Problem with Respect to Mark 16:9–20

Did Mark write verses 9–20? Though the Authorized (King James) Version of our English Bible contains them, modern translations all indicate in one way or another that there is considerable doubt about their authenticity. Thus, R.S.V. relegates them to a fine print footnote. Phillips calls them “an ancient appendix.” Others add a note in which they call attention to the fact that “the two oldest and best manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9–20 but end Mark’s Gospel with verse 8” (thus Beck).

Unanimity is lacking, however. Mark 16:9–20 also has its forceful defenders. The author of this commentary recently carefully reread the defense by J. W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, reprint Ann Arbor, 1959; also R. C. H. Lenski’s remarks, op. cit., pp. 471–486; and E. F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, Des Moines, 1956, pp. 102–113. With what vigor these men argue in favor of their position! In reading Burgon one at times almost receives the impression that “orthodoxy” depends on saving these disputed verses.

If anyone would begin to think that the conflict of opinion is one between “orthodoxy” and “liberalism” (or “modernism”), he would be mistaken. Though it is true that those who cannot be counted among the conservatives reject the proposition that these twelve verses were written by John Mark, no one less than the thoroughly orthodox champion of the faith, the late Dr. N. B. Stonehouse, also rejected it. See his book, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, Philadelphia, 1944, pp. 86–118.

In a commentary there is no room for a discussion of the many positions held in connection with this topic. The main ones are two:

A. Mark wrote 16:9–20.

B. Mark did not write 16:9–20.

Those who defend B are again divided into two groups:

1. Mark intended to conclude his Gospel with the words of 16:8, “ … for they were afraid.” This is the view defended by Stonehouse and others.⁸⁵⁰

2. Mark did not intend to conclude his Gospel at this point. This is, perhaps, the predominant view.⁸⁵¹

What, then, is the position of the author of this commentary? As to proposition A, I do not believe that Mark wrote 16:9–20. My main reasons are two:

a. The external or textual evidence fails to support these verses

They are lacking in the two earliest codices B and Aleph (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), in codex K (codex Bobbiensis, the best exemplar of the earliest African Old Latin text), the Sinaitic Syriac, and other very early manuscripts. Early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen seem not to have known these verses. According to Eusebius, the famous church historian who was born about the year a.d. 260 and died about the year 340, “the most accurate copies” and “almost all the copies” of Mark’s Gospel ended with the words of 16:8, “ … for they were afraid.” Jerome, probably born about the year in which Eusebius died, and like him dying at the age of approximately eighty, also writes that almost all the Greek copies lack the verses 9–20.

It cannot be denied that ever so many Greek manuscripts do contain these words, but when the manuscript evidence is properly evaluated instead of merely counted, the balance swings heavily toward the omission of the contested verses.

b. The internal evidence also fails to support them

(1) Argument based on diction This evidence is rather strong. In order to feel the importance of it, one should carefully compare 16:1–8 with 16:9–20. In verses 1–8 he will probably find only four words that have not already been used by the evangelist in the rest of his book (1:1–15:47). Now study verses 9–20. Here one finds at least fourteen different words not found in the previous portion of the book. Since a few of these “new” words occur more than once in the disputed verses, the actual number of occurrences is about eighteen. There are also words used in a manner different than in the rest of Mark. And there are peculiar phrases.⁸⁵²

New Words

Verse	Form here used (For the meaning of this form see the translation)	Basic Forms	Meaning of Basic Form (First occurrences are in italics)
10	πορενθεῖσα	πορεν́ομαι	to go
10	πενθον͂σι	πενθέω	to mourn
11	ἐθεάθη	θεάομαι	to see
11	ἠπίστησαν	ἀπιστέω	to disbelieve
12	ἑτέρᾳ	ἕτεροσ-α-ον	different
12	μορφῇ	μορφή	form
12	πορευομένοις	πορεύομαι	to go
14	ὕστερον	ὕστεροσ-α-ον	afterward
14	θεασαμένοις	θεάομαι	to see
15	πορευθέντες	πορεύομαι	to go
16	ἀπιστμ́σας	ἀπιστέω	to disbelieve
18	ὄφεις	ὄφις	serpent
18	θανάσιμον	θανάσιμοσ-ον	deadly
18	βλάψῃ	βλάπτω	to harm
19	ἀνελήμφθη	ἀναλαμβάνω	to take up
20	συνεργοῦντος	συνεργέω	to work with
20	βεβαιοῦντος	βεβαιόω	to confirm
20	ἐπακολουθούντων	ἐπακολουθέω	to follow, attend

(2) Argument based on style However, it is the style of Mark 16:9–20, perhaps even more than vocabulary and phraseology, that points to an author other than John Mark. In the first eight verses of this chapter, verses definitely written by Mark, the conjunction “and”—Greek kai—, at the beginning of sentences or of clauses (we are not counting the other kai’s) occurs eight times,⁸⁵³ but in the next twelve verses kai performs the same function only six or seven times.⁸⁵⁴ This means that in the first eight verses kai occurs, on the average, once per verse; in the last twelve verses, on the average, only once (or slightly more than once) in every two verses. There is accordingly a transition from co-ordination of clauses to subordination, from paratactic to hypotactic style. The transition, to be sure, is not radical or absolute: even in the last twelve verses there is a degree of co-ordination. But the difference is, nevertheless, rather striking.

Moreover, speaking about style, in making the transition from 16:1–8 to verses 9–20, who does not sense the striking contrast between the graphic and colorful style of the former and the prosaic summarizing style of the latter?

(3) Argument based on contents If all this has failed to drive home the conclusion that he who wrote verses 1–8 did not write verses 9–20, the fact about to be mentioned surely should do so. In Mark 16:1–8 the “young man dressed in a white robe” tells the women to remind “the disciples and Peter” that Jesus, risen from the dead, will meet them in Galilee. One expects, therefore, that if any appearances of the Lord are going to be recorded, they will be those that took place in Galilee. What actually happens is the very opposite: verses 9–20 never even mention where the appearances there summarized occurred, whether in Judea or in Galilee. From the Gospel according to John (20:1, 2, 11–18) we learn that the appearance to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9–11), mentioned first of all, took place in the Jerusalem region; from Luke (24:13–35), that the appearance to the two men who were walking into the country (Mark 16:12, 13) also occurred in that general vicinity. Next, Luke (24:36 f.) describes an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, etc., to which Mark seems to refer in verse 14. That, too, had nothing to do with Galilee. The only possible connection with Galilee is found in 16:15–20; for Mark’s verses 15, 16 resemble Matt. 28:19, which records words spoken by the resurrected Lord in Galilee (Matt. 28:16). But even here whoever it was that wrote Mark 16:15 f. never mentions Galilee at all.

The fact that there is little if any connection between Mark 16:1–8 and verses 9–20 is also clear from the very nature of the disputed section’s beginning. Mary Magdalene has just been mentioned twice (Mark 15:47; 16:1). Then, in verse 9, she is introduced as if she had not yet been mentioned at all: “Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons” (cf. Luke 8:2).

It has been established, therefore, that proposition A—Mark wrote 16:9–20—must be rejected. Consequently proposition B—Mark did not write 16:9–20—has been accepted But which of its two branches?

According to the first—B 1—Mark intended to conclude his Gospel with the words of 16:8, “ … for they were afraid.” Along with many others I, too, do not feel happy with that solution. My objections are:

a. No other instance of a book ending so abruptly⁸⁵⁵ has ever been found.

b. Not only is such an ending very abrupt, it is also very pessimistic. According to Matt. 28:8 the women departed from the tomb “with fear and great joy.” Did Mark, on the other hand, intend to end his story on a note of gloom?

c. The day of modern fiction writing had not yet arrived. Today in certain literary circles the fashion is to create an agonizing drama that leaves the reader hanging breathlessly on the edge of a cliff, wondering how things are going to turn out. Suddenly the story ends … minus any real denouement. Does Mark do something similar?

In reply it will be said that this objection is hardly fair, since even Mark has mentioned Christ’s resurrection. But Mark has also promised a meeting of Jesus with his disciples in Galilee (verses 6, 7). Not unreasonably, therefore, the reader expects to hear about such a meeting. But nothing of the kind happens. To be sure, when we finally arrive at verse 15, the scene is probably Galilee, but, as pointed out previously, Mark’s ending does not even say this.

The view endorsed by the writer of this commentary is, accordingly, B 2: Mark did not intend to conclude his Gospel at this point.

Questions now arise: “Did Mark ever finish his narrative? If not, why not? If he did, what happened to his concluding lines?”

All kinds of answers have been given to these questions, and every one of them has been immediately and devastatingly refuted. I have no desire to add to this confusion.

For theological reasons the objection may be raised, “But God would not allow his Word to remain unfinished!” The answer is: “Though it may well be true that the Gospel according to Mark lies before us in unfinished form, the story itself is brought to a most triumphant finish in Matt. 28:16–20.

What, then, must we think of Mark 16:9–20, that is, of the ending? It is an interesting summary of some of the appearances of the risen Savior and of his subsequent ascension and session at God’s right hand. As such it is instructive, for it shows us an early church view—how extensively held cannot be precisely indicated—of these matters. To the extent in which this ending truly reflects what is found elsewhere inside the covers of our Bible it can be described as a product, however indirectly, of divine inspiration. Since it would be very difficult—perhaps impossible—to defend the thesis that every word of this ending is without flaw, no sermon, doctrine, or practice should be based solely upon its contents.

* * * * *

In addition to this “long ending” there is also a “short ending,” which in some manuscripts is added after verse 8, as follows:

“But whatever they had been told they reported briefly to Peter and those with him. By means of them Jesus afterward sent out, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of everlasting salvation.”

Since this ending has found even less general acceptance than the longer one, and its spurious nature is evident even on the surface, additional remarks are unnecessary. This holds also for other endings.

* * * * *

BRIEF NOTES ON THE LONG ENDING (Mark 16:9–20), which will be designated the ending

16:9–11 Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene

Cf. Matt. 28:9, 10; John 20:11–18

9 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. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they were mourning and weeping. 11 But they, having heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, disbelieved.

The beginning is rather abrupt, for one has to go back all the way to verse 6 to find mention of Jesus by name. Also here in verses 9–11 his name never occurs. In fact, not until verse 19 is the identity of the One about whom such wonderful things are spoken finally revealed. Could it be that verses 9–11—or perhaps even verses 9–20—formed the conclusion of a lost account?

What we have in our present passage is a summary of John 20:11–18. See N.T.C. on that section. The summary here given is brief, to the point, comprehensive. The most important items are all included. Jesus arose on the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, rewarding her loyalty and continuing to carry on the good work he had begun in her earlier (Luke 8:2; cf. Phil. 1:6). In obedience to Christ’s command she told the disciples and those who were with them, “Jesus is alive, and I have seen him.” The regathering of the previously scattered disciples is implied. She found the group mourning and weeping. That is easy to believe, for their hopes had been shattered. They were perplexed, baffled. And though the words they now heard were as precious as “apples of gold in a network of silver,” they regarded them as being too good to be true. In the light of Luke 24:11; John 20:25, there is nothing in Mark 16:9–11 that is hard to accept as true to historical fact.

16:12, 13 His Appearance to Two Disciples

Cf. Luke 24:13–35

12 Afterward he appeared in a different form to two of them as they were walking into the country. 13 These went back and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either.

Having summarized a section of John’s Gospel, the report now turns to Luke. Having told what happened Easter morning, the events of Easter afternoon and evening are now related.

The summary is very brief; the section summarized is very lengthy (Luke 24:13–35). The ending presents certain difficulties. It informs us that Jesus appeared to the two men who were walking into the country—that is, to Cleopas and his companion (Luke 24:18)—“in a different form.” We do not know exactly what this means. Does the ending wish to tell us that Jesus now appeared not as a “gardener” (John 20:15) but as a traveler or wayfarer?

The report that Jesus appeared to these men and joined them “as they were walking into the country” agrees with Luke’s statement that these two were “going [clearly from Jerusalem] to a village named Emmaus.” And the ending’s further statement that the two men returned [to Jerusalem] and reported to the others what they had experienced is in harmony with Luke’s story.

At this point, however, a real problem arises. The ending states that when the two men reported their exciting experience to Christ’s assembled followers, their story met with unbelief. But Luke’s version is, “They found the eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, ‘The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.’ ” A possible solution would be that some of Christ’s followers had already accepted the glorious Easter truth, while others were still in doubt. Luke 24:37–41 (cf. Matt. 28:17) may give some support to that position. If this is not the answer, does this controversial item in the ending rest upon an erroneous tradition? We should bear in mind that the ending is not necessarily infallible, as is Luke’s account.

16:14–18 The Great Commission and The Signs

Cf. Matt. 28:16–20; Luke 24:36–49; John 20:19–23; Acts 1:6–8

14 Later he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their lack of faith and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen him after he had risen.

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.

17 “Moreover, these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 and they will pick up serpents with their hands;⁸⁵⁶ and if they drink deadly poison it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Again there is no indication of place or time; all we have is “later.” It would appear, nevertheless, that in verse 14 the reference is still to Easter evening. It was then that lack of faith manifested itself, and this not only in the heart and mind of Thomas (John 20:24) but also on the part of the other ten disciples. See Luke 24:36–49. When Jesus suddenly appeared to his disciples in their Jerusalem gathering place, they thought that they saw a spirit, and even a little later they still “disbelieved for joy.” Luke 24:42 may indirectly confirm the words of the ending that Jesus appeared to them “while they were reclining at table.”

Now that the ending has summarized appearances recorded especially in John and in Luke, it is Matthew’s turn. In verse 15 the scene shifts from Jerusalem to Galilee, as the parallel Matt. 28:16–20 indicates.

Verse 15 of the ending is roughly parallel to Matt. 28:19, “The Great Commission” (see N.T.C. on that passage). The emphasis in verse 16 of the ending is not on baptism but on the exercise of faith, exactly as in Matthew; cf. also John 3:16, 18, 36. On the other hand, the person who by God’s sovereign grace has surrendered himself to Christ will also gratefully accept the sacrament of baptism as a sign and seal of salvation. Thus baptism follows faith, as also in Acts 2:41; 16:31–34, and everywhere.

Verses 17 and 18 of the ending have given rise to much misunderstanding and grief. Jesus is here represented as having promised five signs that would accompany those who believed:

a. power to expel demons

b. ability to speak in new tongues

c. ability to pick up serpents, that is (implied), to pick up venomous snakes without being physically harmed

d. the gift of being able to drink deadly poison without being hurt

e. the power to place hands on the sick, who will then recover.

Now a. and e. present no special difficulty. Jesus did indeed impart such gifts to his disciples. They made use of them with good effect. See Matt. 10:1; Mark 9:38; Luke 10:17; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:18; 19:12.

Something similar is true with respect to b. the gift of tongues. See Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; I Cor. 12:10, 28, 30; and the entire 14th chapter of I Cor.

In connection with such special gifts (a., b., and e. above) B. B. Warfield states, “These gifts were part of the credentials of the apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the Church.… They necessarily passed away with it.” That with the passing away of the apostolic age these gifts ceased is also the testimony of Chrysostom and Augustine. It was also the view of Jonathan Edwards: “These extra gifts were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scripture has been completed, and the church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased.” Among others who expressed similar views are Matthew Henry, George Whitefield, Charles H. Spurgeon, Robert L. Dabney, Abraham Kuyper, Sr., and W. G. T. Shedd.⁸⁵⁷

The ending mentions two more signs which Jesus supposedly promised to his disciples, namely, the ability without harm to pick up serpents and to drink deadly poisons (see c. and d. above). Those who accept the ending as fully inspired and infallible Holy Scripture find confirmation for c. in Luke 10:19 and Acts 28:3. See Lenski, op. cit., p. 483. However, Luke 10:19 speaks about “treading on serpents,” which is not exactly the same as picking them up deliberately. According to Acts 28:3 Paul picks up a bunch of sticks and after he placed them on the fire a snake comes out and fastens itself on his hand. He shakes it off without physical harm to himself. But that surely is not what the ending says. Paul did not deliberately pick up a venomous snake! And as to drinking deadly poisons without harm, Lenski must confess that the New Testament offers no example of this. A. B. Bruce, op. cit., 456, 457, is probably correct when he states that “taking up venomous serpents and drinking deadly poison seem to introduce us into the twilight of apocryphal story.” Taking such risks is exactly what by implication Jesus condemned both by example (Matt. 4:7) and precept (Matt. 10:23; 24:16–18).

Ever so often newspapers report incidents of religious fanatics picking up venomous snakes and/or drinking deadly poisons, frequently with sad results. At times those who do this try to justify their strange behavior by appealing to Mark 16:18. It is high time that everybody be told that the ending is binding for faith and practice only to the extent in which its teachings are definitely supported by Scripture in general. In fact, they should be told that the items about picking up serpents and drinking poisons must not be considered Scripture at all!

It is possible, in fact, that in connection with four of the five items here mentioned the historical milieu is later than that of Christ’s earthly sojourn. The following facts must be borne in mind:

Ability to speak in new tongues is never mentioned in the Gospels. Neither is ability to pick up venomous snakes or to drink poisons without incurring any harm. And even as to the gift of performing miraculous healings, though, to be sure, this is definitely mentioned in the Gospels, the possibility that the change from “anointing them with oil” (see on Mark 6:13) to “they will place their hands on the sick” (here in 16:18) is significant deserves consideration.

The public in general should become informed about the truth with respect to Mark 16:17, 18.

16:19, 20 Christ’s Ascension

Cf. Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11

19 So the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and took his seat at God’s right hand. 20 Then they [the disciples] went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming his word by means of the signs that attended it.

The doctrine of Christ’s ascension and particularly of his session at the Father’s right hand was cherished highly by the apostolic church, and occupied a prominent place in its thought and confession (Acts 2:36; 7:55, 56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20–23; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 4; 2:9; 8:1; 10:12; Rev. 3:21; 5:5–14). The ending summarizes this doctrine beautifully. Note especially the following:

a. “the Lord Jesus.” Lordship was ascribed to Jesus especially after his resurrection. Nevertheless, having taken note of Mark 11:3 (see on that passage) we do not find it strange to see this title in the ending.

b. “was taken up into heaven.” Not here “he ascended into heaven,” though this, too, would have been entirely correct (John 3:13; 6:62; 20:17; Acts 2:34; Eph. 4:8, 9), but “he was taken up” (cf. Acts 1:2, 11, 22; I Tim. 3:16; Rev. 12:5; and see also II Kings 2:3, 5, 11). In other words, the attention is here focused on the fact that it was the Father who drew his Son to himself, being eager, as it were, to reward him for his accomplished mediatorial work.

The eleven “went out” or “departed.” This evidently means “from Jerusalem.” This, however, is not in conflict with Mark 14:28; 16:7. The ending, as mentioned previously, is not interested in mentioning places. If some time after meeting with his disciples in Galilee Jesus made his final appearance in Jerusalem and then led them out until they were “over against Bethany” where he was parted from them (Luke 24:36, 50, 51), the ending does not contradict this in any way.

In obedience to Christ’s command (verse 15; cf. Matt. 28:19) the disciples “preached everywhere,” a statement which one would naturally associate with a period of church history considerably later than Pentecost.

However, their preaching would have been ineffective had it not been for the enabling power of the Lord, who was “constantly working with them” (cf. Rom. 8:28) and “confirming his word by means of signs that attended it” (see not only the reference to demon expulsions, new tongues, and miraculous healings, verses 17, 18, ⁸⁵⁸ but also Heb. 2:4).

On this high note the ending closes. Speaking in general, there is nothing in the entire ending (verses 9–20) that is more serene, uplifting, true, and beautiful than these final two verses. They point to “the Lord Jesus” as the One who, from his position at the right hand of God, tenderly watches over, guides, energizes, and governs his church.

Summary of Chapter 16

This chapter consists of two parts: verses 1–8 and verses 9–20. Mark himself was undoubtedly the inspired author of the first part. Arguments based on omission of the second part from the best Greek sources, and on vocabulary, style, and contents, have convinced most scholars that verses 9–20 are inauthentic, that is, of questioned origin, probably not written by John Mark. Who the real author was is not known.

A. verses 1–8 In verse 1 Mark relates what happened on Saturday evening, how three women, loyal to Jesus, bought spices with which to anoint his body.

In verses 2–8 he narrates what happened to these friends and disciples of Jesus very early Sunday morning: their worry about the huge stone in front of the tomb’s entrance, their surprise upon the discovery that this stone had already been removed, and their entrance into the tomb where they were addressed by a young man in a white robe. By Matthew this “young man” is called an “angel.” He conveyed Christ’s message to the women. It was the glad Easter news: “He is risen. He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him.” The “young man” also transmitted to them Christ’s order. He said, “But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you.’ ”

The actual reunion of Christ with his disciples in Galilee is, however, not reported by Mark. For that we must turn to Matt. 28:16–20. Mark’s account closes with the words of verse 8: “And they [that is, the women] fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment were holding them in their grip; and they said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid.”

B. verses 9–20

An unknown author briefly summarizes

John’s

report of Jesus’ appearance. to Mary Magdalene (Jerusalem, early Easter morning). Cf. Mark 16:9–11 with John 20:11–18.

Luke’s

story about Jesus’ appearance to the two disciples who were on their way to Emmaus (Easter afternoon) is the basis for the next few lines. Cf. Mark 16:12, 13 with Luke 24:13–35. The events of Easter evening are reviewed in Mark 16:14: Jesus meeting with his disciples in Jerusalem. This is followed by a parallel to

Matthew’s

account of The Great Commission. Cf. Mark 16:15, 16 with Matt. 28:19. A controversial report about certain “signs” which, it is claimed, Jesus promised to his followers, is found in 16:17, 18. Not all of these “signs” find support in the rest of Scripture, though some do. The final verses (Mark 16:19, 20) express the firmly rooted faith of the early church in Christ’s ascension and session at God’s right hand. The section closes with these words, “Then they [the disciples] went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming his word by means of the signs that attended it.”

⁸³⁹ Or: … the stone had been rolled away, for it was very large.

⁸⁴⁰ Or: greatly amazed; so also in the next verse.

⁸⁴¹ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, gen. absolute (literally, “the sabbath having come in between,” hence, “having ended”). For ἠγόρασαν see on 11:15, footnote 538. ἐλθοῦσαι, nom. pl. fem. aor. participle of ἔρχομαι; ἀλείψωσι, third per. pl. aor. subjunctive of ἀλείφω; hence, literally, “in order that, having come, they might anoint him.”

⁸⁴² It makes little difference whether one conceives of the Greek plural for sabbath as referring to the day or to an entire week (the time from one day of rest to another). If the first is meant, then the idea is that this was the first day counting from the sabbath-day; hence, the first day after the sabbath-day. If the second is meant, the result is still the same; the day indicated is then not the last of the week but the first. In either case Sunday is meant.

⁸⁴³ ἀνατείλαντος, aor. participle of ἀνατέλλω. Cf. Mark 4:6; also Matt. 4:16; 5:45; 13:6.

⁸⁴⁴

The words placed between parentheses are not found in the Greek, which reads, “ … who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? But [or: And] looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, for it was very large.” A literal, word for word, translation into English would cause the reader to think either: a. that the stone had been rolled away because it was very large: or b. that the women were able to see the stone from a distance because it was very large. Neither of these interpretations sounds very natural. Far more reasonable is the explanation that the women were worried lest the size and weight of the stone and the probability that so early in the morning there would be no male friend or disciple around to help them, would make it impossible for them to remove this heavy object and to enter the tomb in order to anoint the body. This is the view that does justice to the context (verse 3). Besides, delayed explanatory clauses are not unusual in Greek. In English, however, the meaning might not be understood apart from the inserted parenthetical clause.

Note ἀποκυλίσει and ἀποκεκύλισται; the first form being the third per. s. fut. indic. active of ἀποκυλίω; the second form being the third per. s. perf. indic. passive of the same verb. Cf. cylinder. In Mark this word is found only in these two verses. It occurs also in Matt. 28:2 and in Luke 24:2. ἀναβλέψασαι is the nom. pl. fem. aor. participle of ἀναβλέπω. It may mean either to look up or to see again, that is, to regain sight. Here in 16:4 the meaning “looking up” is obviously indicated. Cf. 6:41; 7:34; 8:24. But in 10:51, 52 the verb means to regain sight. See also on 8:24, footnote 378.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

⁸⁴⁵ See above, on 9:15, footnote 400.

⁸⁴⁶ For “the Nazarene” see above, on 1:24, footnote 41; also N.T.C. on Matt. 2:23; 26:71; and on John 1:46.

⁸⁴⁷ προάγει, third per. s. pres. indic. of προάγω; see on 14:28, footnote 714.

⁸⁴⁸ τρόμος, trembling, only here in Mark’s Gospel. But see also I Cor. 2:3; II Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; and Phil. 2:12. As to ἔκστασις (cf. ecstasy), Mark has used this word once before, and also in that case in connection with a resurrection from the dead; see above, on 5:42.

⁸⁴⁹ It is true that the Greek word ἔκστασις and the English “ecstasy” are etymologically related, but this does not make it correct to say that “the great joy” to which Matthew refers “is covered by” (thus Lenski) the ἔκστασις mentioned by Mark. In Scripture the meaning of ἔκστασις is rather “to be beside oneself with astonishment, amazement, or bewilderment” (Mark 5:42; Luke 5:26; Acts 3:10). At times the word indicates a trance (Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17).

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

⁸⁵⁰ Among those who have taken the same position are: E. P. Gould, op. cit., pp. 301, 304; J. Behm, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg, 1963, p. 55 ff.; M. H. Bolkestein, op. cit., pp. 364–366 (leans in that direction); E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, Göttingen, 1937, pp. 356–360; A. M. Farrer, The Glass of Vision, London, 1948, pp. 136–146; R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, Oxford, 1850, pp. 80–97, 106–116.

⁸⁵¹ Included among those who hold it are: V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 609; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 402; B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford, 1964, p. 228.

⁸⁵²

New Words

*Verse*	Form here used (For the meaning of this form see the translation)	*Basic Form*	Meaning of Basic Form (First occurrences are in italics)
10	πορευθεῖσα	πορεύομαι	to go
10	πενθοῦσι	πενθέω	to mourn
11	ἐθεάθη	θεάομαι	to see
11	ἠπίστησαν	ἀπιστέω	to disbelieve
12	ἑτέρᾳ	ἕτερος-α-ον	different
12	μορφῇ	μορφή	form
12	πορευομένοις	πορεύομαι	to go
14	ὕστερον	ὕστερος-α-ον	afterward
14	θεασαμένοις	θεάομαι	to see
15	πορευθέντες	πορεύομαι	to go
16	ἀπιστήσας	ἀπιστέω	to disbelieve
18	ὄφεις	ὄφις	serpent
18	θανάσιμον	θανάσιμος-ον	deadly
18	βλάψῃ	βλάπτω	to harm
19	ἀνελήμφθη	ἀναλαμβάνω	to take up
20	συνεργοῦντος	συνεργέω	to work with
20	βεβαιοῦντος	βεβαιόω	to confirm
20	ἐπακολουθούντων	ἐπακολουθέω	to follow, attend

As to words used in a manner different than in the rest of Mark note ἐκεῖνος in verses 10, 11, 13 (twice), and 20; and φαίνω in verse 9.

As to peculiar phrases, note μετὰ ταῦτα, “afterward”—literally “after these things”—(verse 12), which is found indeed in Luke (e.g., 5:27; 10:1, etc.) and in John (3:22; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; etc.), but not elsewhere in Mark, nor even in Matthew.

“They will speak in new tongues” (verse 17) reminds one of Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; I Cor. 12:30; and of I Cor. 14.

And who, in reading “the Lord working with them” (verse 20) does not immediately think of Rom. 8:28? In the same verse (Mark 16:20) is not the phrase “confirming his word” an echo of the type of language found in such passages as Rom. 15:8; Col. 2:7; Heb. 2:3; 13:9?

⁸⁵³ Once at the beginning of each of the following verses: 1, 2, 3, 4; twice in verse 5 and also twice in verse 8.

⁸⁵⁴ I cannot follow Stonehouse when in his book The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, p. 91, he finds not a single instance of this use of kai in the long ending. In my own tally I arrive at six by excluding the weakly attested kai at the beginning of verse 18. By including this kai also, the number increases to seven: once at the beginning of each of the following verses: 11, 13, 15; three times in verse 18 (“and they will pick up … and if they drink … and they will recover), and once in verse 19. I am in full agreement with Stonehouse’s opinion that the style of 16:9–20 differs from that of verses 1–8.

⁸⁵⁵ ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

⁸⁵⁶ The phrase “with their hands” is omitted from some manuscripts.

⁸⁵⁷ For exact references to these statements, beginning with B. B. Warfield, see The Outlook, a journal of The Reformed Fellowship, published in Grand Rapids, Mich., the Oct. 1973 issue (Vol. XXIII, No. 10), pp. 22–24.

⁸⁵⁸ If the author of the ending was thinking of all five “signs,” then we cannot entirely agree with him.

↑ Back to top