The Longer Ending of Mark – a case for its theological precision.
Now, for those who are blessedly unaware of the myriad reams of material on this topic – seemingly deliberately designed by God as a blessed mercy to scholars, so they will always have something to write a thesis or dissertation about, or to round out a commentary with an overstuffed excursus – a small introduction to the issues is probably a good idea. There has for at least 1600 years been a debate about whether Mark 16:9-20 should be in the Bible, or not. And, to be honest, there isn’t much to say about the ending of Mark that hasn’t already been said…if anything.
So, gentle reader, you ask, “well if smart and capable people have exhausted the subject, why are YOU weighing in.” Well, that’s rather ungently put, but it’s a fair question. To be honest, I tend to prefer going with א and B, or Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, respectively. However, a very good case can be made for including the long ending.
At this point in my life I’m willing to say two things conclusively. Well, maybe not conclusively, but confidently. First, Mark 16:9-20 is almost certainly not original. Second, we should continue to include it, and treat it as canonical. I believe it is almost surely apostolic and represents the “final canonical form” of the text, where I think it’s safest to claim Inspiration lies. I make a similar argument about the Pericope Adulteræ.
So, I’ve firmly got my feet in both camps. And maybe that’s wisdom and maybe that’s cowardice. Yet, I believe that Mark 16 gives us a key to understanding the whole Gospel of Mark, brings it to a satisfying poetic and structural conclusion, gives us a key theological detail we would otherwise miss, and also causes us to have a better understanding of Petrine and Biblical theology! Basically, the Longer Ending of Mark gives us an opportunity to gain incredibly valuable insights into almost every aspect of theology. But now it’s time to begin offending people.
First, when addressing Mark 16:9-20, it is a complete failure of exegesis to determine that Jesus promises that we can handle venomous snakes and drink poison and be protected. To make those claims normative is just bad bibleing.
Second, when the text claims that those who “believe and are baptized” will be saved, it seems to me very dubious to claim that believing is not necessary for salvation. People defend this by stating that, “well, immediately following those words the verse says that “whoever does not believe shall be condemned – but is says nothing about baptism, ergo baptism is secondary to salvation.
Let’s examine this claim, because it is strong. It depends on a broken parallel. Basically, it looks like this.
Salvation = Believing + Baptism
Condemnation = Unbelieving
∴
Salvation = Believing +Baptism
Condemnation = Unbelieving
If Salvation is the opposite of Condemnation, and Believing is the opposite of Unbelieving, then Baptism is left out in the cold.
As the proverb goes, one man seems right till another questions him! Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that Believing is inseparable from being Baptized? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that they Believing in Markan literature necessarily includes being baptized as a simultaneous event?
Well, it would certainly seem to be.
You say, why must it be simultaneous? Why can’t it be a necessary step of obedience? Because the failure to be Baptized isn’t listed in the conditions for condemnation, as is the failure to Believe. Somehow Believing needs to be simultaneous with Belief.
Does this mean that real belief only happens upon Water Baptism? Is that Mark’s claim? Well, if so then the Apostles were in trouble, because there is no evidence in Mark of any of the Apostles being Baptized into Jesus’ name. If it were so crucial wouldn’t we have seen this? The answer is, of course, yes.
And since Church History is pretty clear that Mark’s Gospel was sourced in Peter (and there is excellent Internal Evidence to support this) we can look at Peter’s overall theology to see if Mark 16 is consonant. Which it, of course is.
In Acts 2 we read the results of Peter’s Pentecost sermon:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (NIV)
Here we see a strong connection in Peter’s preaching between Belief, Baptism, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the miracle of tongues, and Peter’s entire sermon are drenched in the crucial ministry of the Holy Spirit. The working of tongues was proof of the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Jesus received the ability to send forth the Holy Spirit after he was raised from the Dead. Does Peter imply that Baptism is necessary for salvation? Not in the slightest, since the entire basis of his address to the crowd rests on the Joel passage which concludes with the words: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ Here it seems clear that Peter does admonish the crowd to water Baptism, but not as though the Baptism were a necessary condition of salvation. Baptism here is the proper response to calling on the name of the Lord.
So, it seems that, as the kids say, “I’ve played myself.” I argue in Mark that Baptism doesn’t mean water Baptism, but is concomitant with Belief and is, indeed, necessary for salvation. But in Acts, I’m claiming that Peter, who is the source for Mark, is saying that water Baptism IS linked to salvation. And it certainly seems to be. In fact, in Acts, not only is water Baptism linked to salvation, but so is repentance.
Let’s look more closely at the key passage: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Here, Peter’s argument runs like this:
All who Repent and are Water Baptized in the Name of Jesus for/ unto/ into/ in response to the Forgiveness of Sins will Receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
What’s missing?
Don’t skim, look carefully at the text and my paraphrase. What’s missing?
Belief!
Mark gives 2 imperatives: Repent and be Baptized. He doesn’t command anyone to believe! Why not? Are we to infer from this text that the only things necessary for salvation are to Repent of Sins and be Baptized? Of course not.
Peter’s response is not to the unconvinced. Here he’s speaking to those who are already convinced of the truth of the Gospel. The already believe after a fashion; the text tells us they were “cut to the heart”. Peter is not telling them to believe he’s telling them how to respond to their belief! The response is to Repent of their sin and be Baptized in water in Jesus’ name.
Why?
Because this was an enormous festival of the Jews and Peter is telling these people who believe that if their belief is real and sincere, if they aren’t like the seed on rocky ground or the seed among thorns, they will take steps to make their faith public.
Acts 2 is not in contradistinction to Mark 16, they are talking about different things. Ay, and there’s the rub. Peter claims that those who Repent and are water Baptized in Jesus’ Name would receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that the Gift of the Spirit comes AFTER Repentance and water Baptism?
Nope. There is no temporal link between these concepts. Indeed there are only two places in Acts where the expression “Gift of the Holy Spirit” is used. Here and in Acts 10:45, incidentally, also starring Peter, incidentally, also about the gift of tongues! It was the Gentile Pentecost!
The pertinent text reads:
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (NIV)
Here it is plain that the Gift of the Spirit preceded Water Baptism and the Gift of the Spirit preceded any kind of confession of faith. It is clear that in Petrine (and thereby Markan) theology, water Baptism does not precede the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
What does this mean? It means that Peter places heavy emphasis on water Baptism. But a much heavier emphasis on Believing and receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. How does this help us with Mark 16? Well, it confirms what we already knew, going in, which was that Mark 16 is not saying that water Baptism is a prerequisite for Salvation. But, we DO know that from Acts 10 that the Gift of the Spirit seems to be given simultaneously upon Believing, even when no outward Repentance or Confession of Faith has occurred. What does this mean? It means that the Baptism which is simultaneous with Believing which is necessary for Salvation is the Reception of the Gift of the Holy Spirit!
But is this Markan? Would the Gospel of Mark even sustain such a claim – this seems like some high Systematic Theology and far beyond what the “simple Gospel” Mark is able to muster.
But now that we’ve seen the END of Mark, let’s go back to the BEGINNING. Mark 1 says the Gospel begins with John the Baptist’s ministry. A ministry of Repentance. And what is John’s message?
“After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Through the entirety of Mark’s Gospel we are told that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit will be how Jesus Baptizes. And we never see Jesus Baptize anyone. Indeed, outside of John 1, we never hear of people being baptized in anything other than a figurative sense! Mark talks about water Baptism in chapter 1. He talks about baptism, as in washing plates and pots in chapter 7. He tells the Boanerges that they will be Baptized with His Baptism – they will die a Martyr’s Death!
Mark never gives any instruction about the disciples performing water Baptism. Mark never even mentions water Baptism outside of chapter 1.
There is simply no good reason to think that at the very end of the book the reference to Believing and being Baptized is not a fulfillment of the promise that Jesus would Baptize with the Holy Spirit. In fact, the whole Gospel of Mark is one long treatise on how Jesus accomplishes everything He sets out to do. It would seem incredibly strange for Mark to mention Baptism as a command for Believers and have it refer to anything other than the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, since this is the only promise concerning Jesus that Mark makes that CAN be fulfilled and isn’t.
In conclusion. We have every reason to trust that neither salvation, nor the Gift of the Holy Spirit, must be preceded by Water Baptism. We have every reason to trust that Peter knew that people receive the Holy Spirit BEFORE water Baptism. We know that the only instruction connecting Jesus to Baptism in Mark is John’s promise that Jesus would Baptize with the Holy Spirit. Thus, whether or not the Longer Ending of Mark is original, it is clear that either Mark, or a redactor, determined that using the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as an “inclusio” created a powerful vindication of Jesus’ earthly ministry and His continued power over events on earth as He fulfills His promised ministry of Baptizing with the Holy Spirit. This vindication means that Christ is able to fulfill His ministry, even when He is not physically on earth. He is able to Baptize with the Holy Spirit from Heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Power.
In short, Mark’s inseparable linking of Believing and Baptism reminds us of the promises about Jesus and His ability to fulfill them.