Distinguishing 2 gifts of the Holy Spirit.

[epistemaniac]

thanks again for your thoughts Mike... it would be good to get together over some kool aid or tea or coffee or whatever... if you are ever in north central Indiana let me know and we could get together...when it comes to the guy who came to you with a "word of knowledge", all I was saying was that this word of knowledge doe snot automatically justify speaking in tongues, the 2 are not NECESSARILY related...my main point about teaching about tongues is that even though we disagree, it doesn't follow that the person who disagrees should not be allowed to teach on the subject... I understand what you are saying about connecting to the audience, but if I was teaching a group of people who believed as I do, and not as you do, concerning tongues, then we would "connect"... and perhaps I could connect even with those with whom I disagree....that is to say that I too "know the gifts are real", we just disagree about the nature of those gifts... and so to put it in your way of saying things, God has "revealed to me" that the larger part of tongue speaking today is not in line with the Scriptures... in other words, just because we disagree it doesn't follow that God has NOT revealed anything to me on the subject... and that because you do practice ecstatic utterances that it means that God HAs revealed anything to you... what is happening is that we are disagreeing about what God HAS IN FACT revealed, and the only way to see the truth of this matter os to search the Scriptures. In any case, God does not reveal contradictory truths, so either you or I is wrong about this.... but it can't be reduced to a simple "God revealed that this is the truth to me" as if that settles the question... because whenever you have 2 people who say that God revealed something to them, and those 2 things contradict one another, you can be sure one of them has not heard God correctly... and just because you do speak in tongues it does not mean that you are automatically hearing God correctly on this matter, and because I do not speak in tongues that I am therefore automatically mistaken...as far as Mark 16:17-18 according to the word of God, if you take this whole passage to be normative for the Christian community... then everyone who speaks in a new tongue should also be handling snakes (they will take up serpents)... the "if" refers to the drinking of poison...as far as tongues go... there seem to be 2 different types spoken of in the bible... the first, that which is spoken about by Jesus in Mark, is the temporary supernatural gifting to speak in a known language that one does not innately or naturally know, for the specific purpose of witnessing to the truth of Christ to persons who know that language and are present at that time... this is exactly what happened in Acts 2... "It is clear from the study of the NT that there were two distinct uses of the word "tongue." (1) One was the promised gift of languages (glṓssai) other than one's own native language. This gift was for those who were going to be baptized in the Holy Spirit into the body of Jesus Christ and which gift they were to use to affirm the gospel as happened in the historical context of Jerusalem at Pentecost (Act_2:3-4 [diálektos (G1258), Act_2:6, Act_2:8], Act_2:11) and involving Jewish believers. It was also exhibited at Caesarea Maritime (Act_10:44-46; Act_11:15-18) involving Gentile believers and in Ephesus (Act_19:1-6) involving the disciples of John. These were foreign languages which the speakers had not learned, but yet they were enabled to speak as a result of the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit in what the NT calls specifically "the baptism in the Holy Spirit" (a.t.) by Jesus Christ (Mat_3:11; Mar_1:8; Luk_3:16; Joh_1:33; Act_1:5; Act_11:16; 1Co_12:13). See baptízō (G907); báptisma (G908).Promise of this event was given in Mar_16:17. In connection with this verse, it should be noted that these signs were not for believers of generations to come, but for previous believers since the part. pisteúsasi is in the aor. tense indicating those who at some time in the past had believed. These were all languages unknown to the speakers, spoken at that particular time in demonstration of their being baptized into the body of Jesus Christ (1Co_12:13).Observe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is an event which includes all believers. These are the same languages demonstrated as charísmata (the results of the grace of God in the human heart) mentioned by Paul in 1Co_12:10, 1Co_12:30; 1Co_14:5-6, 1Co_14:18, 1Co_14:22, 1Co_14:39.It is then to be observed that whenever the word glṓssa is used in the pl. (glṓssai) with a sing. pron. or subj., it refers to dialects (Act_2:3 f., Act_2:8, Act_2:11) which were not learned by the individual concerned. Such an individual was enabled instantly and temporarily by the Holy Spirit to speak in a language other than his native tongue. In 1Co_14:6, 1Co_14:18, Paul himself refers to speaking in glṓssais, languages or tongues. By this he meant languages which he already knew or the ones that he was enabled to speak by the Holy Spirit when and if needed. The pl. glṓssai with a sing. pron. or subj. refers to known, understandable languages, and not to an unknown tongue as practiced in Corinth. But even when utilizing these gifts, one should be sure he is understood by those who hear him, otherwise he will be taken as a maniac (maínomai [G3105], beside oneself, mad) (1Co_14:23)." (Word Study Dictionary, Spiros Zodhiates)the second type of tongues was those which Paul was dealing with at Corinth, ie the bringing in of the pagan practice at the Oracle of Delphi, eg ecstatic utterances... "(2) Whenever the word glṓssa in the sing. with a sing. subj. or pron. is used, translated in the KJV "unknown tongue" (1Co_14:2, 1Co_14:4, 1Co_14:13-14, 1Co_14:19, 1Co_14:26-27), it refers to the Corinthian practice of speaking in an unknown tongue not comprehended by someone and, therefore, not an ordinarily-spoken language. Such was the unknown language of the priestesses spoken in the oracles at Delphi. For example, 1Co_14:26 may refer to a language foreign to the hearers and uninterpreted. The expression in 1Co_13:1, "the tongues of men and of angels," means the languages which humans and angels speak. The language or languages of angels cannot be interpreted as being the same as the unknown tongue spoken in Corinth which was different from any intelligible ethnic language. Whenever the angels spoke to humans as God's messengers, they always spoke in an understandable language, needing no interpreter, as to the shepherds (Luk_2:10-12), the Virgin Mary (Luk_1:28), and many others. Never did God or any angel He sent speak to someone in a language which that person could not understand. Even the fish, when Jonah was in its belly, understood when God spoke to it. Speech has as its direct object the understanding of the words uttered.The phrase probably denotes inspired utterances. Angels were often the vehicula of divine revelation and the bearers of holy oracles. Heb_2:2 characterizes the OT as "the word spoken by angels." (ibid)Unfortunately much of today's church follows in the unbiblical practice of the Corinthians ecstatic utterances....But just to be clear... I do believe in the supernatural gift of tongues.. here is an example which I believe fits the biblical pattern... this is a true story... a woman surgeon had been called of God to go and practice medicine in Africa, she was a surgeon... it was a very difficult decision to be there, it was dangerous and she had been beaten and raped numerous time... but still she stayed... she prayed for healing for each and every person she operated on, many were healed, but never by the power of prayer alone, but rather by the surgery... one day when she was in a tent giving out medications many natives were gathered.... suddenly out of nowhere a very strong wind blew the sides of the tent outwards and all the natives except one dropped to the ground... the native that was standing began reciting a passage out of Isaiah in perfect English. The problem is, the native did not know English, nor had the bible been translated into his dialect... as a result of this many of the natives came to know Christ... this seems to fit in perfectly with the bible's account of how tongues are supposed to be carried out... on the other hand, the practice of ecstatic utterances as is found among Charismatics, Word of Faith, Assembly of God, Pentecostals etc, which are not known languages, is not biblical.So people who do not speak in tongues do not in fact deny what Jesus said in Mark 16... what we do is affirm that this is the truth and that this prophecy was fulfilled at the Day of Pentecost and at other times in the early church when persons spoke in languages they did not know those languages naturally, and as a result of those people speaking, supernaturally in languages they themselves did not know, people came to Christ savingly. We saw that these same prophecies were fulfilled in Paul in the book of Acts where, when shipwrecked, he was bitten by a poisonous snake and did not perish, Acts 21:1-6... In any case, there is reason to suspect this passage as belonging to the original manuscripts, as Robertson says "The great doubt concerning the genuineness of these verses (fairly conclusive proof against them in my opinion) renders it unwise to take these verses as the foundation for doctrine or practice unless supported by other and genuine portions of the N.T." (Robertson's Word Pictures) you say

Take up serpents is not talking about snakes, but having authority over an area ruled by mean men, and devils. In order to preach. (Look at the Greek)

I did... see above and below, also I will include an extended addendum re this passage...you say

It's not your fault, but this is a generalization of what some believe.

hmmm... I guess I could say exactly the same about what you believe ;)

Sadly, there are some dumb dead folks that have attempted to preach with poisonous snakes,

roflol... I guess in one sense this a lot more sad than funny, but you made me laugh just the same ... thanks Mike :)

and if you think it meant snakes, it never said anything about them having to be poisonous.

you are right, but then again, it also never says "Take up serpents is not talking about snakes, but having authority over an area ruled by mean men, and devils. In order to preach."given the example of Paul at the Isle of Malta, though he did not intentionally pick up the snake in order to show that he could be bitten with no ill effects, it seems to me, that comparing scripture with scripture, this is what the text means... but in any case, we both have our interpretations and though I disagree with yours, I respect it...you say re Copeland and Savelle

Very awesome brothers in the Lord. I am thankful for Brother Copeland and all the free material he sent me in prison. I believe my son is alive today because of it. Jerry comes and visits us from time to time, and my Pastor is on Believers Voice of Victory pretty often and is good friends with Brother Copeland, who comes once a year to visit us for the Branson Victory campaign. His Granddaughter currently attends our church.

though I am glad you benefited from their ministry, now I can only sadly say that I believe them to be false teachers leading many astray... see the book "Christianity in Crisis" by Hank Hanegraaff, and see alsohttp://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/kcopeland.htmlhttp://www.equip.org/search.php?zoom_query=kenneth+copelandhttp://www.false-teachers.com/copelandarticle.htmetcremember that I do not mean anything personal by this, any more than your saying that you believe Calvinism to be error, all I am saying is basically the same thing about Copeland and many in the Word of faith movement...

I speak in tongues during my prayer time, and I can tell you it is well worth the effort to at least look into. I guess it's something you have to be open to and experience.

Mike... I had hoped by now that you realize that I HAVE looked into it!!! lol... And just because something gives you personal subjective pleasure, it does not therefore mean that it is also biblical... this is an extreme example, but it proves the point... there have been men who have cheated on their wives because they "felt led by the spirit" to do so... now this led to them having subjective pleasure, they would tell you, if they remain unconvicted by the true Holy Spirit, that it "was well worth it"... they may have felt their wives were not being supportive, they did not understand, were not symphathetic to their needs etc etc etc but the point remains that no matter what they felt "led" to do it did not make it right... and what my point was in regard to tongues is that it doesn't matter how it makes you feel when you do it, the question is really one of "is it biblical?" Of course, you believe it is... I just disagree...as far as my being "open to the experience"... when I first became a Christian in the early 80's I was led to the Lord by a dear woman who attended Charismatic churches... I went to these churches for quite awhile, and of course they all wanted me to speak in tongues... I had people pray over me innumerable times to 'recieve the gift of the the Holy Spirit"... I prayed for it myself... but it never happened... sadly some of the leaders int he church began to question whether or not I was saved... and they were pretty convinced that I must be harboring "some secret sin in my life'... and even more sadly, I began to believe them... I figured that evidently God did not love me or else He would give me this gift everyone was so concerned about... and so I fell away from the church for a number of years, eventually I was able to go back to school, I attended a conservative Christian college where I determined that I would learn how to study the Scriptures for myself and would never just accept what anyone told me on face value again... and I have revisited the topic of tongues many times since... so its no simply that I disagree with it because "I am not open to it", I disagree with it because I do not think that modern tongues is a reflection of the actual languages that God supernaturally enabled people to use in the first century in order to validate the gospel message and the authority of the original apostles... lastly, many Charismatics/Word of Faith people attempt to use Romans 8:26 in defense of tongues... first notice that the word "tongues is never used in the verse... epople just read "tongues" into it... second Paul says that these groans "cannot be uttered", so that even if you believe in tongues, and even if tongues were being spoken of here (which Paul isn't) then whatever it is that is in the heart or mind, it cannot be uttered, there can be no vocalization thus on this account alone, this rules out that this verse is teaching the modern form of speaking in tongues...

I pray in tongues, because I don't even want to pretend to understand the whole situation.

I don't pray in tongues, but I don't want to even pretend I understand the whole situation either! :)

I trust in the Holy Ghost, and want to keep my natural thinking out of the way.

Me too.

God can speak to you at any time, you don't have to use tongues,

Amen and Amen....

How God fixes things is up to Him, and I thank Him for the Wisdom for what the Doctors could not see.There you go Brother. I hope this was satisfactory. I love you and God bless you. Jesus Is Lord

Amen and Amen again... :) That was satisfactory, thanks for the good conversation... and I love you too brother... for Jesus is indeed Lord!!blessings, kenps see additional post for the addendum I was referring to concerning Mark 16

 

[epistemaniac]

In connection with such special gifts ... 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. 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. Baker New Testament Commentary - Baker New Testament Commentary – Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark. We add only this: there were not two kinds of speaking in tongues; Acts 2 is decisive regarding the point that the tongues were foreign languages that had never been learned by the speakers but were perfectly understood by those who spoke these languages.Lenski New Testament Commentary - Lenski New Testament Commentary – The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. 16:9-20 The supplement. As mentioned in the Introduction, the early church was faced with the same question as we are about why Mark broke off so abruptly, especially since the other gospels give such full accounts of appearances of Jesus after the resurrection. It seems that 16:9-20 is made up of two attempts to complete the story (vs 9-18 and 19-20). These are largely made up of details taken from the other gospels or Acts, with a few additions from early church traditions as well. They cannot be said to be part of the Scriptures (like the rest of the gospel), but they are an honest attempt to 'complete' the story of Jesus. New Bible Commentary: 21st century edition. 16:8 Up to this point there has been no serious problem with Mark’s ending. Even the absence of resurrection appearances night not be such a great problem if v. 8 had indicated that the women went away with joy and told the disciples (as Matt 28:8 and Luke 24:9 say they did) and that the disciples told others. Verse 8, however, comes as a shock to modern readers, and there is evidence that it did to ancient ones as well. The women fled from the tomb just as the disciples fled from the arrest, trial , and crucifixion. They were seized with trembling, bewilderment, and fear. Worst of all they told no one what they had heard and seen. In the end they seem to have failed just as much as the male disciples. Thus ends the Gospel according to Mark. At least it does in the two earliest and generally regarded most reliable Greek manuscripts, in one inferior Greek manuscript, in most Greek lectionaries (apparently because the lectionaries reflect older texts), in one Syriac manuscript, in one Copic manuscript, in some Armenian manuscripts, in the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, and in several early Christian writes, including Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. A.D. 215) and Origen (d. A.D. 339) and Jerome (d. A.D. 420), who stated that most of the Greek manuscripts they knew (but have not survived) had nothing after v. 8. Actually Mark’s Gospel ends in four different ways in the ancient textual witnesses. The first has just been indicated. Second, the majority of extant Greek manuscripts, some early and some later versions, and some early and later Christian writers have vv. 9–20, which constitute the so-called long ending and which are printed in the NIV after a break and end with a note that would seem to indicate the translators rejected their authenticity. Most of the Greek manuscripts have the inferior, medieval type of text, but some have a text of medium value. Some of the manuscripts that have the long ending, however, mark the passage as suspect. Among the early Christian writers supporting the longer ending are Justin(?) (d. ca. A.D. 165), Irenaeus (d. ca. A.D. 202), and Tertullian (d. ca. A.D. 220). The KJV and NKJV have vv. 9–20 because they are based on the medieval type of Greek text. Third, one Old Latin manuscript adds after v. 8 what is called the short ending. It is not printed in the NIV. In the RSV margin it reads: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from the east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” Fourth, about seven Greek manuscripts of medium and inferior value and some manuscripts of some versions have after v. 8 first the short ending and then the long ending (vv. 9–20). If the matter is judged strictly on the basis of external evidence, the decision will favor slightly ending the Gospel at v. 8. The deciding factors are its attestation by the two earliest and generally most reliable manuscripts and the statements by Eusebius and Jerome. The mere existence of three different longer endings weighs against all of them. The unusually large amount of variation within the long and short endings make them suspect. Nevertheless a fair case can still be made for the longer ending (vv. 9–20) because of its early and widespread attestation. If, however, internal evidence is considered, the decision is overwhelmingly in favor of ending at v. 8. The language (vocabulary, grammar, style) of both the long and short endings is definitely un-Markan. The long ending seems to start over as though she had not appeared previously in the account. The long ending has no appearances of Jesus in Galilee or to Peter, as one would expect from v. 7. The long ending seems to be a pastiche made up of items from other Gospels and even other portions of the The New Testament (v. 9, cf. Luke 8:1–3; v. 10 cf. John 20:18; v. 12 cf. Luke 24:13–32; v. 13 cf. Luke 14:33–35; v. 14 cf. Luke 24:36–38; v. 15 cf. Matt 28:19; Acts 1:8; v. 16 cf. John 20:23; vv. 17–18 cf. Matt 10:1; Mark 6:7, 13; Luke 10:19; Acts 2:4; 3:1–4; 14:8–10; 28:3–6; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:18). Matthew and Luke cease to follow Mark after 16:8, which suggests that their manuscripts of Mark did not have the long or short endings. It is virtually certain that Mark wrote nothing after v. 8, i.e., he did not write the long ending (vv. 9–20) or the short ending. Another question, however, arises. Did Mark intend to end his Gospel with v. 8? Some considerations would seem to indicate that Mark did not intend to end with v. 8. It seems inappropriate to end a book or even a sentence with a conjunction (the conjunction gar, translated “because” in the NIV, is the last word in the Greek text). It seems inappropriate to end a Gospel—an account of the good news—on a note of fear and without appearances in Galilee, especially to Peter. None of the above considerations is decisive, however. Various examples have been collected of sentences ending with gar, including John 13:13. One probable and several possible examples of books ending with gar exist. The fear may not be natural fright but religious awe (Exodus 3:3; Isa 6:1–5; Jer 1:6–8; Ezek 1:22; Luke 1:29–30). As for the last matter, it is surprising that no resurrection appearances to Peter or others in Galilee or elsewhere are reported, but this is understandable at the earliest stage of Gospel writing. Evidently there were none in the hypothetical document called “Q,” which was produced about the same time as Mark or perhaps a little earlier and which consisted only of a collection of the sayings if Jesus. Furthermore, if Mark did not intend to end with v. 8 additional questions arise. Did he write and ending for his Gospel that has been lost? If so, the loss must have occurred at a very early stage, certainly before Mark’s Gospel came into the possession of Matthew and Luke, a mere ten to twenty years after its composition, and possibly in the original manuscript of Mark itself. If it were the last of these, it seems likely that Mark or a close associate would have been able to restore the ending. Accidental loss is therefore improbable. This too would have had to have occurred at a very early stage. It is unlikely in the extreme that there would have been anything objectionable in the ending. Did Mark then intend to write more but was prevented from doing so by illness or death? Did he die in the Neronian persecution? This explanation is a possibility, but there is no evidence for it, and it is mere speculation. As a result of the improbability of the above options, the prevailing view in contemporary scholarship is that Mark intended to end his Gospel with v. 8. The problem then becomes to explain why he did so. New American Commentary - New American Commentary – Volume 23: Mark. There is one question left to be considered: the ending of this Gospel. The NIV has a break after 16:8 before printing 16:9-20, as do the RSV and most other recent translations. Some Bibles like the KJV seek to preserve a narrative flow from 16:1-8 to 16:9-20. Most modern translations, however, treat 16:9-20 as a late addition to the original Gospel. There are good reasons for not accepting 16:9-20 as part of the original manuscript. In the first place the earliest manuscripts simply stop at 16:8. Moreover, 16:9-20 does not follow the logic of the account of the empty tomb. Mark 16:9 contradicts 16:8, and the longer ending contains no mention of Jesus meeting the disciples in Galilee. Galilee in fact is not mentioned there at all. The longer ending denies the expectation that the young man's message sets up. In fact, the longer ending itself does not appear to have been composed at one time (France 2002:687). There seem to have been several stages in its development, as indicated by the apparent break at the end of 16:11 and the awkward and unspecific beginning of 16:12. There are two other possibilities. One is that the original ending may have been lost. In favor of this suggestion is that 16:8 by itself would seem to be a strange ending. In Greek the last word of the Gospel is for, and there is a very real question about whether this ending would even be grammatically correct. Gundry observes that 16:9-20 reveals such a great dissatisfaction with the ending at 16:8 as to indicate that the early Christian community thought the original ending had been lost (1993:1012). On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine how the original ending could have been lost without any convincing attempt to reconstruct it. One would have to argue that not only the ending but any memory of it was also lost. Apart from the earliest manuscripts all ending at this point, this is a problematic thesis because Mark is the first of its kind. It is difficult to argue how the first Gospel should have ended. The other possibility is that 16:8 is the intended ending (Marxsen 1968:140-42; Meyers 1988:99). An important point is to be found in the idea that the women did not say anything about what they had seen because of their fear and astonishment. This is the ironic counterpoint to the injunction Jesus gave his disciples after they had witnessed the transfiguration: "Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead" (9:9). Now that the Son of Man has risen from the dead, however, the followers of Jesus who knew about it were speechless. Their silence underscores Mark's presentation of the resurrection as a parable. In conclusion, then, it is simply implausible that the Evangelist was unaware of the accounts of the resurrected Jesus. There is little except conjecture to support the idea that the original ending has been lost. The longer ending conflicts with 16:7 and 16:8, and negates their parabolic character. On the other hand, something is to be said for the idea that Mark intended for the Gospel to conclude in this enigmatic way. If this is so, then the Gospel of Mark ends on the same note with which it opened—a call to repent and believe. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series - The IVP New Testament Commentary Series – Mark. “A. Textual Evidence 1. The text ends at 16:8 in the major fourth-century codices אand B and in a number of MSS of versions, notably the fourth-century Sinaitic Syriac. Clement of Alexandria and Origen do not appear to have known any text beyond v. 8, and Eusebius and Jerome both state that the traditional Londer Ending (vv. 9–20) was not found in the majority of the Greek MSS available to them. The earliest form of the Eusebian canons (deriving from Ammonius, early third century) made no provision for readings in Mark beyond 16:8. 2. OL Codex Bobbiensis omits the last six words of v. 8 and goes on instead not with vv. 9–20 but with the Shorter Ending which briefly reports (in thirty-four words) how the women took the news to the disciples and how Jesus then sent out by them to all the world ‘the holy and immortal proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen’. It includes no account of a resurrection appearance of Jesus, though this is no doubt implied by the statement that α[FONT=&quot]ὐ[/FONT]τ[FONT=&quot]ὸ[/FONT]ς [FONT=&quot]ὁ[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ἰ[/FONT]ησο[FONT=&quot]ῦ[/FONT]ς sent out the gospel proclamation (and a few MSS add [FONT=&quot]ἐ[/FONT]φάνη). 3. Without amending v. 8, two seventh-century fragments (099, 0112), two eighth-century MSS (L and Ψ), and a few later uncials use the same Shorter Ending, but then follow it also with some or all of the Longer Ending. The same is found in a few Coptic and Ethiopic MSS and in the margin of the Harcleian Syriac (the main text of which has only the Longer Ending). 4. A number of later minuscule MSS (f1 22 etc.) give the Longer Ending but mark it off with marginal signs or comments to indicate that its textual status is doubtful. 5. The remaining MSS and versions (which are of course the vast majority, but on the whole are later than those mentioned above) contain the Longer Ending (vv. 9–20), continuing after v. 8 without comment. It was known at least as early as Tatian and Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century. 6. The fifth-century codex W, one of the earliest MSS to have the Longer Ending, has a substantial addition of eighty-nine words (the ‘Freer logion’) at the beginning of v. 15, described by B. M. Metzger as having an ‘obvious and pervasive apocryphal flavour’,42 which consists of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples concerning the ending of the period of Satan’s power and the truth and righteousness now made available through Christ’s death. Jerome records the same additional words and says they were found in some Greek MSS. B. Literary Considerations 1. Most of the content of the Longer Ending (vv. 9–20) echoes, usually in abbreviated form, elements in the resurrection stories of Matthew, Luke, and John, as follows: v. 9 Appearance to Mary of Magdala Jn. 20:11–17 (with Lk. 8:2) v. 10 Mary of Magdala as messenger Jn. 20:18 vv. 11, 13 Disciples’ unbelief Lk. 24:11, 41 vv. 12–13 Walk to Emmaus Lk. 24:13–35 v. 14 Appearance to the eleven Lk. 24:36–49; Jn. 20:19–23 v. 14 Rebuke of unbelief Jn. 20:24–29 [?] v. 15 Evangelistic commission Mt. 28:19; Lk. 24:47 v. 19 Ascension Lk. 24:50–51 (together with the ‘sitting at the right hand’ theology of Hebrews etc.) The parts of the Longer Ending not accounted for in this list are those which go beyond the resurrection appearances as such to describe the subsequent preaching and activity of the church. Thus in v. 16 we have a summary of a basic baptismal soteriology, which has the flavour of Johannine dualism (and possibly draws on the baptism element in Mt. 28:19–20), in vv. 17–18 some of the ‘signs’ which are related in Acts are summarised, and v. 20 is virtually a summary of the whole book of Acts in a nutshell. In the whole of the Longer Ending the only element which is not easily accounted for on the basis of familiarity with the other gospels and Acts is the emphasis in v. 18 on handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison: the former perhaps reflects the single instance of (involuntary) snake-handling in Acts 28:3–6,43 but the expectation of these two activities as regular ‘signs’ is the one distinctive contribution which the Longer Ending makes. In all other respects vv. 9–20 have something of a ‘secondhand’ flavour, and look like a pastiche of elements drawn from the other gospels and Acts. 2. It is hard to characterise the style of the Longer Ending as a whole since it is such a mixture of elements from other sources, but it certainly reads very differently from Mark’s lively and expansive narrative, and contains a notable concentration of words not used elsewhere in Mark.44 In particular, both v. 20 and the main part of the Shorter Ending read more like pious committee summaries of the post-Easter task and experiences of the church than like the way Mark writes in his gospel. 3. Neither ending follows naturally after v. 8 since both contradict its closing statement (unless the last six words of v. 8 are omitted, as in Codex Bobbiensis but nowhere else). The Longer Ending has further problems in that v. 9 begins with Jesus as subject yet without naming him, when the subject of v. 8 was the women and Jesus was not present in the preceding scene, and goes on to introduce Mary of Magdala as if she had not already been mentioned in 15:40, 47 and 16:1. For these reasons, the almost unanimous conclusion of modern scholarship is that both the Shorter and Longer Endings, in their different ways, represent well-meaning attempts, probably sometime in the second century,45 to fill the perceived gap left by the ‘unfinished’ ending at 16:8, in the case of the Longer Ending by drawing eclectically on what had by then become the familiar traditions of the post-apostolic church, and that these endings, particularly the longer, established themselves in general usage so that by the fourth century they appeared in many MSS, though by no means yet all (so Eusebius and Jerome). As time went on, the text concluding at 16:8 was increasingly forgotten, and virtually all later MSS included one (or occasionally both) of the endings. This is an intelligible historical process which accounts as economically as possible for the various data listed above. France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark : A commentary on the Greek text (685). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press. “These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well” (verses 17–18). The fulfillment of most of these promises is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles. The age of miracles no doubt is long passed. They were never meant to continue beyond the first establishment of the church. It is only when plants are first planted that they need daily watering and support. The whole analogy of God’s dealings with his church forbids us to expect that miracles would always continue. In fact, miracles would cease to be miracles if they happened regularly without cessation or intermission. It is well to remember this. The remembrance may save us much perplexity. Ryle, J. C. (1993). Mark. The Crossway classic commentaries (268). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books. blessings,ken

 

[Brother Mike]

I am sorry to hear you got into one of "Those" churches at the start, but it was a start. I get really upset with the Pentecostal movement, because they let human emotion, and dumb thinking take the place of What scripture does say. They often make someone the Victim who does not receive tongues or healing. No faith, sin, whatever they can make up. In reality when someone needs healing, I feel that I have to listen to the Lord and be anointed enough to get the information to them they need. never just a pat answer that they have sin or no faith. I take this stuff serious.I also know what other believe about Mark 16. It's in my KJV so good enough for me. This is to simple for some, but I believe God is faithful to get me the information I need, and that I don't need to rework anything. It can be challenging enough to get understanding of the scriptures I do have. They shall take up serpents!!! If we both agree that we are not commanded to chase snakes, then good enough for me.

The age of miracles no doubt is long passed. They were never meant to continue beyond the first establishment of the church.

My experience aside, I would contended that Jesus Has never changed, The Holy Ghost has never changed, The name of Jesus used to heal the man at gate beautiful has never lost an ounce of power. There is no scripture that says any of it has long passed away.Thank you Brother. I see your point about the revelation that God has given bother of us. The thing that bothers me is that you quote a lot of other books and other mens ideas about things. I guess it's OK, but it still bugs me.] You remind me of a Baptist friend I had in Prison. He hated tongues, he would tell me I need to pray to God so he could understand me, as I would get more prayers answered. when it was his turn to do bible studies, it was very college like, and hard for some to follow. I learned a lot of stuff from him. One time He got real sick, and I asked him if He wanted me pray for him to be healed. He thought about it then said, yes, I know GOD USES YOU THAT WAY. (not that healing was part of our covenant, but God just piked me.) I told him in the name of Jesus He will be fully healed when he wakes up tomorrow, and he was, but that did not change his mind much. He just learned to accept what he did not believe before going to prison. God did a lot of supernatural cool stuff for us. So, Brother. I can understand where your coming from. Who is going to bring that lemonade. I may go back to Champaign Il, in a few years and could stop by. Be blessed!!!!! jesus Is Lord.

 

[Isabell]

Wow, thank you for taking the time to share such extensive amounts of information on the topic. Very interesting.Isabell

 

[epistemaniac]

you are most welcome Isabell :)blessings,ken