Mark 16:9-20 discussion - signs.

At church last Sunday we did an interactive sermon/discussion on this passage of Scripture. There were a number of topics we explored and afterwards I thought about some additional things I could have mentioned (but we ran out of time). So I thought I would add them on this blog. Please feel free to continue the discussion by adding your own comments or questions. For clarity I thought it would be good to have a different post for each topic. So if you have a comment about a topic please add it here and I will create a new post. (For example later in the week I am going to create a post on condemnation)

Signs:
A question was raised to the effect that 'do I need to have experienced the signs listed in my life?'.

I believe the answer is NO. Signs point to the reality of a life with God. Life with God is the important thing.
The list of signs in the passage is only partial - for example it doesn't include prophecy
Paul says in 1 Cor 12 that prophecy tongues etc will one day cease (not yet) but faith hope and love remain
Jesus said that many will claim to have done various signs but he will say 'I never knew you' (Matt 7:22-23) - the important thing is knowing Jesus.

However as we follow Jesus into mission we should expect to see signs operating in the lives of those we are reaching. Sometimes it will take a risk/faith step on our behalf. For example, people won't be healed with the laying on of hands unless we actually do some laying on of hands (or praying for people etc); and spiritual warfare won't necessarily happen unless we actively engage in it.

David Wanstall, 11/23/2009

Tags: mission, prophecy, signs

Feedback:

	Chris Cass (Guest)	11/23/2009 14:22
This discussion has been helpful for me, particularly, the idea that signs will follow (but not on every occasion, e.g., not all people are healed when prayed for). If God healed on every occasion, where is the mystery in that? I think God wants us to choose Him (life with Him). And to choose this life by faith (last 2 words italicised and bold). If it was abundantly obvious that there was a God in the world (as evidenced by continual signs & miracles) there would be no room for faith. (Indeed, "miracle" would become an obsolete word as the miraculous would always be guaranteed to happen.) Faith involves making a choice, either for "this" or "not this". However, if there is no alternative but one (God), there is nothing else to choose. Choice always implies that two options are available. If God always healed on every occasion, how would a person not choose God? I think He wants us to choose Him; in some ways He hides Himself so that we have the choice to search for Him.
	Tim Pietsch	11/23/2009 19:11
Chris' comment is supported by a favourite scripture of mine in Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" ... and WE are co-heirs with Christ, the king of kings (Rom 8:17) ... so it's therefore in communing with God and studying His word that we start to glimpse the fullness of God in us as believers (as in Ephesians 3:19 & 4:13). Or as David so aptly put it, the important thing is KNOWING Jesus.
	Lindsay Gordon (Guest)	11/24/2009 13:27
Hi David I thought it really odd that you would be brave enough to preach on a passage that was not an original part of Mark and that was added probably hundreds of years later by a scribe who simply thought that the original ending to Mark was too abrupt. My authority for this is Bart Ehrman, the Chair of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in his book "Misquoting Jesus" PP65-67. In my (and his) opinion the whole section was simply made up and has little or no credibility at all. To go into a detailed interpretation of the passage seems like an exercise in futility based on very shaky substance. Bart Ehrman says that there is abundance evidence that passages like this were altered or written, some 300 years after the event, in order to bring them into line with orthodoxy. Additonally, he says, "We do not have the originals of any New Testament book. Nor do we have copies made directly from the originals, nor copies made from copies of the copies of the originals, nor copies made from the copies." Consequently I am very sceptical about the value of the discussion last Sunday because its source was not credible. I also believe that it is a basic contradiction of Christian teaching, if not theology, to state that Jesus would condemn (i.e., sentence) those who did not believe. It seems like another attempt by the early church to have people conform out of fear. I hope that my comments do not fall outside the "Acceptable Use Policy".
	David Wanstall	11/25/2009 23:51
For those interested in the textual criticism issues of Mark 16:9-20, the wikipedia entry is good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Mark_16:9.E2.80.9320_in_the_manuscript_tradition It points out the lack of early manuscripts (as I did on Sunday), It also points out, as I did on Sunday, that the vast majority of the content in these verses is also found in other parts of the gospels. It is therefore a credible and useful summary - the same points we covered on Sunday could have been covered from other verses from undisputed parts of the gospels. But the verses are included in most bibles - with appropriate notes about manuscript evidence - and is therefore worth covering however irregularly. Regarding the reliability of NT manuscripts in general, the lack of originals for ancient writings is not unusual - it is almost uniformly the norm. Compared to other ancient documents, the NT manuscripts have by far the most copies that are closest in time to the time the originals were written. They also have the largest number of copies available. Both of these can be combined with the rules of textual criticism to determine the wording of the originals with a very high level of confidence.
	David Wanstall	11/26/2009 07:34
I would be happy to have a conversation about 'Misquoting Jesus' at some point if you would like. Regarding 'condemnation', I would be interested in any reflections you have on the word study stuff in the separate post on that topic.
	David Wanstall	11/26/2009 10:37
Here are links to a four part series on textual criticism for those interested: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_the.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_the_1.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/new_testament_manuscripts_disc.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/the_manuscripts_tell_the_story.html
	Lindsay Gordon (Guest)	11/27/2009 13:33
Idon't mind having a chat about "Misquoting Jesus" but I guess my main problem is that, if Jesus really was the great teacher Christians claim him to be, then there would be noone (or very few) who would not believe whatever it is that they had to believe and then be condemned as a result. I don't want to get too caught up in semantics but,in my view, "condemnation" in the sense we are discussing it, seems to have more to do with the attitude and convincing ability of the teacher than the failure results and sentencing of the pupils. I had a year-12 maths teacher like that. The failure was in the teacher rather than the many pupils who didn't understand what he was trying to teach. His maths might have been OK but his teaching wasn't. When it is all boiled down, it is just a matter of opinion rather than fact.
	Lindsay Gordon (Guest)	11/28/2009 10:05
Sorry. I think I got myself tied up with a double negative
	David Wanstall	11/29/2009 21:30
On the criteria you suggested, who might you suggest to be great teachers - contemporary or historic? An idea such as 'condemnation' quickly becomes grounded in actual examples, as per the one you gave. Any Christian understanding of 'condemnation' needs to be shaped by the actions of Jesus in the gospels - how he interacted with the ignorant, slow, learned, confident, outcasts, weak, powerful etc. "When it is all boiled down, it is just a matter of opinion rather than fact." - on what basis is this statement true?