# Pastoral Question: Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11



## J. Dean

Do you or have you preached from these passages?

I ask this because in most Bibles it states that the earliest manuscripts available do not contain these passages. That, and the fact that I think in my whole life that I've heard the latter part of Mark 16 preached on only once (and it was a pentecostal preacher talking about it. Go figure).

Thoughts?


----------



## ADKing

Full disclosure: I am persuaded of the superiority of the Received Text, a member of the Trinitarian Bible Society and preach from the King James Version 

Yes, I have preached on John 8 and I have taught from Mark 16. In the case of John 8, I made no explanatory comments about textual issues, I just preached on it in such a way as not to raise doubt. After the sermon, those members who were aware of the issues asked me about it and I was able to have a profitable conversation in that context, whch seemed more appropriate. When teaching on Mark 16 (actually a study on the Great Commission) my intention was to show the positive contribution Mark 16 makes in comparison with Matthew 28 and why it is good we have both accounts.


----------



## Andres

My pastor is currently preaching through Mark's Gospel. Although we haven't gotten to chapter 16 yet, he already mentioned he will be stopping at chapter 15.


----------



## AThornquist

I love how Piper handled John 8. You can Google it for specifics, but he simply laid out why it should not be considered original but also why it should not cause us to doubt the Word of God. What the story principally teaches is taught elsewhere by Jesus.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I have heard the concept Piper promotes before (ironically at my liberal PC(USA) seminary when the idea that John 8 should not be in her bible destroyed the faith of a young girl in my class) and I find it seriously troublesome. 

Either John 8 is God's Word or its not. Piper's way around the issue is just a cop-out in my mind.


----------



## KMK

I also am not convinced of the CT's superiority, therefore, I have preached John 8:1-11. I don't remember what comments I made about the CT.


----------



## ADKing

AThornquist said:


> I love how Piper handled John 8. You can Google it for specifics, but he simply laid out why it should not be considered original but also why it should not cause us to doubt the Word of God. What the story principally teaches is taught elsewhere by Jesus.



This is very troubling indeed. As Protestants we believe (or should believe) that God inspired every word of Scripture. To claim that these are not God's words but they are in harmony with general Scriptural themes so can retain a place in the Bible severly undermines an orthodox doctrine of Scripture. 

In my opinion, if one sincerely believes that passages like John 8.1-11 are not the very words of God, and one is preparing a Bible translation, one should have the honesty and courage to remove them altogether. Leaving them in for tradition's sake cannot help but undermine a Protestant doctrine of Scripture.


----------



## MarquezsDg

i struglled with this passage at first. I have come to the conclusion that i wont be convinced by any man and understand that the earliest may not have but the fact is we dont have the original and i believe i have an accurate translation of the orginal so i believe Mark wrote 16:9-20. I know many will say that scholars show that it probaly wasnt. quite frankly i dont care i believe Mark wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## AThornquist

ADKing said:


> To claim that these are not God's words but they are in harmony with general Scriptural themes so can retain a place in the Bible severly undermines an orthodox doctrine of Scripture.



Piper doesn't claim it should be retained on the basis that its themes resonate with Scripture. I believe he follows the reasoning of some conservative Biblical scholars who disagree with its authenticity: it is hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is illegitimate even if there are good reasons to think so; thus, perhaps it should be retained with some notification that it is debated.

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------




MarquezsDg said:


> I know many will say that scholars show that it probaly wasnt. quite frankly i dont care i believe Mark wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.



Conservative Christian scholars that "show that it probably wasn't" would agree that Mark wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That really isn't the issue. The issue is that if Mark 16:9-20 was not original, its writer _wasn't_ under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## ADKing

AThornquist said:


> Piper doesn't claim it should be retained on the basis that its themes resonate with Scripture. I believe he follows the reasoning of some conservative Biblical scholars who disagree with its authenticity: it is hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is illegitimate even if there are good reasons to think so; thus, perhaps it should be retained with some notification that it is debated.



This just begs the question, though, doesn't it. What do you tell your people as a pastor? "We have reason to believe this is not the word of God. But since we can't prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt, we'll leave it in here". What an uncertain sound is this! Is this the Word of God, or is it not? If pastors cannot even give a straight answer to their hearers on a question of such importance as this either the faith of their people in the Bible will be undermined, or else we encourage them all to become relativists. "No one can really know..."

And where does this line of reasoning stop? Most of Scripture is disputed by someone! Should we have notes all over the place telling people this and that is disputed? Or is it only the ones disputed by "conservative" scholars? Again this just begs the question. What are their credentials for being considered "conservative"? Who makes that call? One could make the case that anyone who questions the authenticity of Scripture should not be entitled to the term "conservative". Isn't this how heresy like calling into question the historicity of Adam and Eve is spread even in Reformed denominations? "Well, 'conservative, Bible-believing' Christians disagree on that".


----------



## MarquezsDg

AThornquist said:


> Conservative Christian scholars that "show that it probably wasn't" would agree that Mark wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That really isn't the issue. The issue is that if Mark 16:9-20 was not original, its writer wasn't under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.



Sorry thats what i mean i do believe Mark wrote 16:9-20


----------



## KMK

ADKing said:


> Who makes that call?



Ultimately, this has to be the Holy Spirit not the church.



> LBC Chapter 1, Paragraph 5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet *notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.*



The fact that it does 'resonate with Scripture' should be more persuasive than the testimony of the church. It sounds like Piper has it backwards.


----------



## Guido's Brother

I have preached on Mark 16:19-20. You can find my sermon here.

I also defend the canonicity of these verses in my book, For the Cause of the Son of God.


----------



## AThornquist

ADKing said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper doesn't claim it should be retained on the basis that its themes resonate with Scripture. I believe he follows the reasoning of some conservative Biblical scholars who disagree with its authenticity: it is hard to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is illegitimate even if there are good reasons to think so; thus, perhaps it should be retained with some notification that it is debated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just begs the question, though, doesn't it. What do you tell your people as a pastor? "We have reason to believe this is not the word of God. But since we can't prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt, we'll leave it in here". What an uncertain sound is this! Is this the Word of God, or is it not? If pastors cannot even give a straight answer to their hearers on a question of such importance as this either the faith of their people in the Bible will be undermined, or else we encourage them all to become relativists. "No one can really know..."
Click to expand...


I'd prefer a pastor be honest and tell me that godly men disagree on the authenticity of certain passages rather than tell me a sugar-coated fib that I want to hear, i.e., that we are 100% sure about every passage in the entire Bible. This would only lead a congregation to relativism if an irresponsible pastor let it.


----------



## MW

AThornquist said:


> What the story principally teaches is taught elsewhere by Jesus.



A pericope must be understood within the flow of the author's presentation in order to understand its principal design. If the apostle John did not write this pericope no one has any way of knowing who wrote it or what purpose it was intended to serve. It would then be impossible to discern if its principal teaching is taught elsewhere by Jesus.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

For those interested in learning more about why the last 12 verses of Mark are canonical and should be treated as such I recommend Dean Burgon's work on the matter.

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against ... - John William Burgon - Google Books


----------



## Elimelek

I have preached on both texts, but dealt with the textual issues before hand. While I don't think that Mark wrote Mark 16:19-20 and that John 8:1-11 was originally part of John's Gospel, I believe it is part of the Bible and has been accepted as part of the canon. Instead of four literary witnesses to the empty tomb, we have five. All are inspired.


----------



## Wayne

Some earlier sermons on those texts:

Mark 16:9-20 (or thereabouts)--
16:15-16
Spurgeon, C.H., "Baptismal Regeneration," #573, MTP 10.313-328.

16:15
Chalmers, Thomas, "On the Duty and the Means of Christianizing our Home Population," Sermons and Discourses, ii.345-350.

16:16
Clarkson, David, "Of Faith," Works, i.63-173.

Spurgeon, C.H., "Baptism Essential to Obedience," #2339, MTP 39.601-609.

Oddly enough, out of about 150 Puritan and Reformed pastors indexed, I don't see any who have published sermons on John 8:1-11.

Spurgeon preaches on John 7:46
Spurgeon, C.H., "The Unrivalled Eloquence of Jesus," #951, MTP 16.517-528.

and Edwards picks up at 8:12
Edwards, Jonathan, "Christ, The Light of the World," Works, x.535-546.


----------



## Wayne

Some earlier sermons on those texts:

Mark 16:9-20 (or thereabouts)--
16:15-16
Spurgeon, C.H., "Baptismal Regeneration," #573, MTP 10.313-328.

16:15
Chalmers, Thomas, "On the Duty and the Means of Christianizing our Home Population," Sermons and Discourses, ii.345-350.

16:16
Clarkson, David, "Of Faith," Works, i.63-173.

Spurgeon, C.H., "Baptism Essential to Obedience," #2339, MTP 39.601-609.

Oddly enough, out of about 150 Puritan and Reformed pastors indexed, I don't see any who have published sermons on John 8:1-11.

Spurgeon preaches on John 7:46
Spurgeon, C.H., "The Unrivalled Eloquence of Jesus," #951, MTP 16.517-528.

and Edwards picks up at 8:12
Edwards, Jonathan, "Christ, The Light of the World," Works, x.535-546.


----------



## KMK

Elimelek said:


> Instead of four literary witnesses to the empty tomb, we have five. All are inspired.



I have never heard of this view. Are there any traditions or ECF writings that support this?


----------



## rbcbob

KMK said:


> yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.


----------

