Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

2) The 16^th Chapter of Mark: Mark 16:15-20 gives five signs of believers. These signs were evident with the early church as they have been in my life. The critic would say, "Have you picked up snakes with your hands"??? The answer is no insomuch as physical serpents. I have however seen from scripture that the term "Pick up" can be and indeed should be, given the context "make to doubt". Equally to drink any deadly thing should be "imbibe, take in and keep mentally".

Mark 16: An Exegetical Essay

(paraphrased by Moth -me- without permission of the author)

Revivalists use Mark 16 as a standard 'proof-text' for their Pentecostal experience, but there seems to be some selective reading. For years the RCI has followed pastor Lloyd's unique interpretation that Mark 16 should be read as a parable from verse 9 onwards. See the essay essay, titled "Is it a Parable?" that effectively demolishes that line of argument.

... consulted many commentaries on 'Mark' that were written from the fourth century onwards in an effort to locate anyone at any point in history, who has offered a similar suggestion to that provided by Lloyd Longfield. He was unable to find one. Therefore it should be in question.

Mark 16:15-18

You know the scripture: "...preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptised will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: drive out demons..., new languages..., pick up snakes... unharmed from poison,.... place hands on sick."

Jesus' parting words to his disciples were, "go into the world, and preach the gospel to everyone!" To Christ, the most important thing in the world wasn't that the disciples go into it, but that the gospel was preached: the sole command in the verse is "preach the gospel". I offer that a misunderstanding of the nature of the gospel invariably leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of salvation. History demonstrates that such confusion all too frequently results in a rapid spiral into works-based, human-centric; fear-breeding forms of religious legalism, as such remains the natural religion of fallen human beings.

Ian has a lot of neat stuff here to say about the greek but if I skim over it I'm sure many others will. So I recommend checking the original manuscript to go deeper.

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on the "signs".

Given that Jesus used the Greek plural for "signs" (sēmeia) in our passage, the first question that we need to ask ourselves is simple: how is this word used in (1) the NT record generally, and (2) Mark's gospel particularly? (Moth - more Greek stuff... refer back... I just can't bring myself to soak it in... I just can't) Mark went on further to describe five specific "signs" (note they are plural) that would "accompany" (a future tense, active voice, indicative mood verb) those who "believe" (again an active voice, aorist participle). They are:

(1) that in Christ's name they will drive out demons;

(2) they will speak in new languages;

(3) they will pick up snakes with their hands, and

(4) whatever poison they drink won't harm them; and finally

(5) that they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.

The RCI understands the majority of these "signs" (numbers 1, 3 and 4) to be somehow parabolic or metaphorical. The RF, on the other hand, apparently accepts the literal interpretation of the majority of Mark's "signs", but understands them to be latent promises to be called upon as required. However, that confuses what Mark signs", with Paul's "spiritual gifts"! The former, however, serves to demonstrate the reality of God to an unbelieving world; the latter serves to build-up an already believing Christian assembly. In reality though, the RF has also attempted to reinterpret away the simple teaching of Scripture because it doesn't gel with the their doctrine.

Because the Revivalist groups universally claim the gift of tongues (itself a biblically defensible position), and because they universally link this particular spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation (itself not a biblically defensible position); they can't simply jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties that a straightforward reading of the passage presents them with.

"Yes, all speak in tongues! Well...we do see some people being healed through prayer sometimes. But clearly it's their fault! They must lack faith! Well, no...we'll have none of that demon stuff and nonsense here, and don't even being with the poison-drinking, snake-handling rubbish!"

Unfortunately though, Mark doesn't allow so casual a picking-and-choosing of what one is prepared to accept as valid when it comes to the "signs" that Mark 16 presents. To him, one either accepts the lot, or one rejects the lot. (see original manuscript for the grammatical reasons).

The answer

The RF in particular has assumed two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse 17: "these signs shall accompany those who believe". First, that the future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. And second, that it's a promise to all believers.

However, given that the statement appears after a conditional sentence (16:16), and given the entire range of subsequent contextual grammatical conditions that Mark presents ("...he that...and is...shall be..."), it's clear that the statement itself should be taken as a prediction rather than as a promise. This is further supported by the fact that each of the six instances of third person plural verbs mentioned with respect to the "signs" of verses 17 and 18, are categorical (or ?generalising') plurals. Categorical plurals separate and distinguish one group, from every other group. This form of plural exists in Greek, as it more easily yields itself to a generic notion: the focus is more towards the action, than it is towards the actor (i.e. "this is the kind of person who does this"). In our text the "signs" serve to distinguish Christian believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet.

Our current text doesn't teach that all believers will cast out demons through to healing the sick at all. The stress isn't on the notion of promises given to believers it's on the authentication of Christianity as being from God before an unbelieving world. The passage, therefore, teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast out demons. Others still may be involved in the range of supernatural effects that are described, but these effects are simply one part of what it is that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to and from every other group. The effects?the "signs"?aren't individual promises, they're corporate predictions.

Conclusion

Revivalists collectively appeal to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their shared spiritual experience of "tongues", and further, to validate their unique theology that one must speak in tongues in order to be a "true" believer. However, Mark 16:15-20 doesn't reflect or represent the Revivalist theology at all. Each of the Revivalist groups has gone to extraordinary lengths over the years to explain-away the "missing signs", when what has really been missing is a proper appreciation of the passage's true meaning, as it stands. The Revivalist groups, quite simply, have gotten Mark 16 wrong.