Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Well it was February of 1969 on a rainy Sunday when I showed up at Grace Church in my late
twenties with no idea of what the future held. As I said, there were a couple of things in
my mind. One was to teach the Scripture verse-by-verse and the other was to train men. God has brought
to a fruition of some kind, anyway, both of those desires in ways that are way beyond
anything I ever imagined.
I was prepared to teach the Bible seriously, but joyfully. I was prepared to teach it verse-
by- verse, word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase and letter-by-letter, if necessary, because
I was compelled on one great foundation, by one great motivation. I believeÖI believed
it then, I believe it nowÖthat when I held a Bible in my hands, I actually held THE living
Word of God. I believe that. I have always believed that. And my faith in the accuracy
and integrity of Scripture is stronger every passage of my life.
I suppose I could have started out at Grace Church by doing a rather long defense of the
Scripture. I didnít do that. I didnít do that because I didnít need to do that. The
Scripture will defend itself. It is its own defense. Itís like a lion, you just open
the cage and let it out.
I donít need to tell you this is the living Word of God, you know it is. There is no other
explanation for it when you really dig down. It is so obviously divine. Iím really building
on the work of others. Iím kind of the last guy in the process. My task has been to tell
you what the Bible means. Thatís really the end of the process. Before I can do that,
I have to have the Bible. And before I can say this is the Word of God, and you can see
that it is the Word of God, it has to be the Word of God.
What you hold in your hand right now, your Bible, I can tell you is an accurate, English
translation of the original manuscripts written by the authors of the Bible. It is accurate.
If I didnít believe that we had an accurate translation of the original text of Holy Scripture,
why would I endeavor to explain it verse-by-verse and word-by word? Itís very, very essential
and very foundational to understand that what you have in your hand in a twentieth century,
if you had the NAS, or twenty-first century if you have the ESV, English translation is
an accurate translation of texts that originated thousands of years ago. And the reason that
I can say that is true is because I understand the science and the history of manuscripts
and the passing down of Holy Scripture. That is one of the most important things you learn
in seminary because if you have any wavering in your confidence about the integrity of
your translation of the Bible, it will suck the conviction right out of your heart. That
is why those who attack the truth, attack first the veracity of Scripture. Because if
the Bible can be shown to be inaccurate, or an inadequate translation, or wrong, then
we have no assurance of anything.
So the basic question for anybody who is going to give their entire life to the study of
Scripture is, is the Scripture accurate? Now I will confess to you, Iím not limited to
the English translation. I took a minor in college in Greek, twenty-four units of Greek,
so that I could read the New Testament in its original Greek language. Came to seminary
and took more and more and more Greek and threw in Hebrew, so that I could be familiar
with the original language in which the Scriptures were written, Old Testament and New Testament.
But that is the foundation. That is why thatís so important in seminary. And I can tell you
this, that I started out believing the Bible is the Word of God, and I ended up believing
that the Bible is the Word of God even more strongly. Not because Iíve studied the science
of manuscripts through the years, but because Iíve studied the Bible and it is its own
greatest defense.
Now that leads me to have you turn to the book of Mark because here somebody might say,
ìThat issue of accuracy is called into question.î Because there is this odd ending of Mark,
starting in verse 9 and running down to verse 20, you see a section in brackets, a bracket
before the word ìnowî in verse 9, and a bracket after the word ìfollowedî in verse
20. And if you have a New American Standard, or an English Standard Version, even if you
have a New King James Version, there will be a note in the margin explaining that this
is a variant, this is a text that has been added to Mark. That is a most providential
way to end our 43-year study because now that you have 43 years, those of you who have endured
it all, 43 years of absolute unshakable confidence in the veracity of Scripture, we can talk
about the science of it.
This section at the end provides a very rich opportunity for Bible students to be strengthened
in the confidence that the Bible that they hold in their hands is accurate. This section
allows us to do something weíve never done in 43 years, and that is to go behind the
text, below the text, the cherished English translation that you have come to love and
to dig down into the history of the ancient manuscripts on which all modern translations
in all languages are based. You hold in your hands that precious Bible and you donít even
think about the fact that thereís an entire history behind itÖa long history, a long
history of careful preservation of the original manuscripts, the original text, so that thousands
of years later when you read your Bible, you can trust that you have an accurate translation
of the original.
This is the first element in the mind of a Bible student, what did God say? Do I have
His actual words? Then we can talk about the second element, what does God mean? And thatís
where I come in. But first, we have to know what He said, then we can talk about what
He means.
All translations of Scripture, all of them, are based on ancient sourcesÖancient sources
that have been discovered in libraries throughout ancient times, treasures for those libraries.
They have been discovered, they have been studied, they have been analyzed for their
accuracy. They have been compared by the most fastidious, dutiful, thoughtful, careful scholars
through the centuries so that I can say to you, unequivocally, the Bible you hold in
your hand, if you have formal equivalency, an actual translation, I can assure you, you
have an accurateÖan accurate Bible.
The Holy Spirit, who is the author of Scripture, inspiring every writer of Scripture, is also
the preserver of Scripture. Supernaturally, He moved on the writers without disrupting
their own words and thoughts and ideas so that they wrote exactly what He wanted them
to write. He moved on the preservers to make sure that the Scripture stayed pure for history.
The printing press didnít show up till around 1500. Everything up to that time was copied
by hand. Scribes understood the seriousness of what they did. There are some amazing stories
about scribes, listen to this, copying down the Hebrew Old Testament who wrote one letter,
left, and took a bath. Came back, wrote another letter, left, and took a bath, and did that
until they had written the whole Old Testament. Sort of ceremonial cleansing to remind them
after every letter of the importance and the sacredness of what they were copying.
At first, they were copying the original texts, written by Moses, written by David, written
by Isaiah, written by Paul, written by Paul, James, Mark, Luke. They knew what they had
in their hands and they copied it carefully because they understood it was Holy Scripture.
Now, today, we haveÖletís just take the New Testament cause thatís where weíve been
working, we have twenty-five thousand ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, twenty-five
thousand. You say, ìIs that all thereÖî Oh no, I couldnít even begin to tell you
how many there were that disappeared over the centuries, but there are twenty-five thousand
that are extant, that now exist. This is an abundance of manuscripts by which we can compare
them all and come to the accurate understanding that we need. Such an abundance shows how
the Holy Spirit preserved everything. That was the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Old Testament manuscripts. When they were found, they were written before the time of
Christ and they are matched to the translations we have today, showing how the Holy Spirit
preserved Scripture.
NothingÖnothing in ancient literature, even comes close to the mass of manuscripts that
we have on the New Testament. And what they demonstrate is the uniformity and the consistency.
There are, as I said, twenty-five thousand ancient manuscripts. There are five thousand,
six hundred or so Greek manuscripts and they go way back. We have Greek manuscripts from
the second century, from the third century. Our Lord lived in the first century. There
is a manuscript called P-52 and theyíre numbered and named according to the people who found
them, or the location, or something like that. This one called P-52 has parts of the gospel
of John and it dates from 100 to 150 and John was living in the nineties. Somebody copied
an original, most likely, or a copy of an original, very near the original.
There is another papyrus, they were writing on papyrus so theyíre called papyri, thereís
another one called the Bodmer Papyri in which we find John and Luke and it dates from 175
to 225. And then thereís the very famous papyrus called the Chester Beatty papyrus
that has all four gospels and the book of Acts and it dates around 200. They go way
back.
Hereís the amazing part. There probably shouldnít be a lot of manuscripts from those early years.
Why? Because second century in particular and the third century, for sure, was a time
of immense Christian persecution, and an effort to stamp out Christianity by the destruction
of Christians and Christian scriptures. But the Lord preserved these ancient texts, copies
of those very close to the original.
Once you get into the fourth century, around 325, or so, you get Constantine making Christianity
legal. The persecution ends and now manuscripts proliferate. Theyíre everywhere. And so by
the time you pass say 325, the Council of Nicea, we begin to see manuscripts in abundance.
The two most important ones, one is called, itís a Codex, this is called a Codex because
it is a bound volume, rather than a scroll. The first one that is very important is called
Sinaiticus and itís about 350 and itís the whole New Testament. The second important
one is called Vaticanus, 325 and itís the whole Bible. By the way, both Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus end Mark at verse 8.
We also have eight thousand ancient copies of the New Testament in Latin called the Vulgate.
And the Vulgate dates from 382 to 405. We also have 350-plus copies of the Bible in
Syriac that goes back to the 200ís. If Iím belaboring this a little bit, Iím going to
tell you why. We have all these ancient manuscripts that when compared all say the same thing.
The early church fathers, for example, before 325 because there was the Council of Nicea
in 325, theyíre called the ante nicene fathers because they were before Nicea, the early
fathers in the 200ís and 300ís, if you just readÖthere were these guys writing all kinds
of theology, and all kinds of biblical study material, if you take the church fathers prior
to 325, there are among those fathers about 32 thousand quotes from the New Testament.
There are so many quotes from the New Testament among those fathers in the writings of the
fathers, which we have, which are held in libraries, that we can reconstruct the complete
New Testament from nothing but the writings of the fathers. Thatís another source to
find what the New Testament said in ancient times.
The writings of the early church fathers also confirm the accuracy of the gospels. There
are over nineteen thousand quotations from the gospels in the writings of the fathers.
So whether youíre reading a Greek manuscript, a Syriac Bible, or whether youíre looking
at a Latin Vulgate or whether youíre reading a quote from a church father, it is crystal
clear that they all had the same thing. They would be reading essentially in their language
what youíre reading today in yours because yours is drawn from those ancient manuscripts.
Now let me give you something to compare with all that. The second most common ancient document
in the manuscript world is Homerís Iliad. Remember that when you went to college? You
had to read that epic poem called the Iliad by Homer? Next to the New Testament there
are more copies of Homerís Iliad than any other ancient piece of literature. Oh, by
the way, there are 643 of themÖ643, small change compared to twenty-five thousand. And,
oh by the way, the oldest one is from the thirteenth century A.D. and Homer wrote in
the eighth century B.C. We donít have anything even close to when Homer wrote. Who knows
whether Homer ever said any of that?
Another familiar piece of literature to a student of history is the Golic Wars, Caesar
fought Golic Wars. He wrote the Golic Wars, the history of the Golic Wars in the first
century B.C. There are ten existing manuscripts of that, the oldest one is a thousand years
after Caesar wrote.
Some of you may have heard of Herodotus, the Greek historian. He wrote history. In fact,
Herodotus could be the father of historians, he was the son of the first historian. He
wrote in the fifth century before Christ. We have eight manuscripts of Herodotusí history
and the earliest is 1300 years after he wrote.
Thereís another one. Because I studied European history and have always been fascinated by
this, Iím even reading something about it now, the history of the Peloponnesian war
written by Thucydides, we have eight manuscripts of that, the earliest is 1300 years later.
Do I need to go on? Nobody bothered to protect those. Nobody bothered to preserve those.
But, boy, did they work hard to protect the Word of the living God. They knew what they
had. With so many accurate manuscripts, you can know with no hesitation that the Bible
you hold in your hand is a true English translation of the original autographs, as theyíre called,
preserved accurately.
One of the scholars that Iíve studied in years past, is a man named A.T. Robertson.
Youíll see his name connected to matters regarding biblical scholarship. A.T. Robertson
says, ìThe vast array of manuscripts has enabled textual scholars to accurately reconstruct
the original text withÖlisten to thisÖmore than 99.9 percent accuracy.î Thatís pretty
good. More than 99.9 percent accuracy.
Whatís so amazing about this, these are all hand copiesÖhand copies. Now you say, ìYou
mean, in all of that there are no errors?î Oh, I didnít say that. They made errors.
They put in a wrong word, put in a wrong spelling, left something out, occasionally they even
tried to clarify something, some of these scribes. But guess what, we have so many manuscripts,
we know when theyíre doing that. We know when weíre doing that. Plus, if something
shows up in a later manuscript, and itís not in any of the earlier ones, we know it
was added later. It isnít brain surgery.
And thereís a science of textual criticism, itís called lower criticism. The science
of textual criticismÖIíll give you an illustration of it. If you came across a manuscript in
Greek that said, ìItís easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a
rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven, you have your manuscriptÖitís easier for a camel
to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.î Hum.
And letís say you found another fragment discovered somewhere and it said this, ìItís
easier for a cord to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom
of heaven.î You certainly canít put a camel through the eye of a needle, but you could
put a cord through the eye of a needle. Which would be the correct one? What would your
answer be? Not cord, because nobody would turn cord into camel, but somebody might turn
camel into cord. Oh, by the way, thereís only one two stroke difference between the
word for cord and the word for camel. But we know when somebody does that. Thatís the
science of textual criticism. Camel is right. We also know that because of the text, because
the text says, ìItís impossible with man,î and it would be impossible to put a camel
through the eye of a needle.î
You say, ìWhy in the world are you telling us all this? Are you enjoying it? Is it helpful?
Okay. Why am I telling you this? Because here we are at the end of Mark and weíve got this
long textual variance on the end of Mark that we know did not appear in the original autograph
written by Mark. Thatís why itís in brackets.
And, by the way, look at the bottom of the page after verse 20 wherever you are, do you
see another paragraph there in different type? Thatís another ending that showed upÖa short
one. So you have a long one, and a short one.
Why is this here? If itís not in the original, why is it here?
Well, I think thereís a pretty obvious answer. Verse 8, remember verse 8 from this morning?
This is Markís closing statement. ìThey went out and fled from the tomb for trembling
and astonishment had gripped them and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraidÖperiod.î
Thatís it.
Can you understand that folks started to say, ìYou know, this doesnít seem like an ending,
that seems like stopping, not ending.î The language is dramatic. The resurrection is
shocking. The women are convinced of the resurrection by the empty tomb and by the angelic announcement.
It has dawned on them in their terrified bewilderment. Theyíre gripped by the wondrous reality of
the resurrection and a few steps later theyíre characterized by great joy. Theyíre speechless.
And, oh, by the way, so is Mark.
I like that. Verse 8 says, ìThey said nothing to anyone,î and that was good enough for
Mark, he didnít either. He just shut it down. How fitting that the end is so dramatic and
so powerful that neither the women, nor Mark could speak.
And what do you need to add? You have an empty tomb. You have an angelic announcement. And
you have the wonder of eyewitnesses. You know, Mark started this whole thing back in verse
1of chapter 1, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
What was Mark working for in writing this history? He wanted you to be convinced of
what? That Jesus is the Son of God. Mark wanted the same thing that John wanted, ìThese things
are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.î
Did he make his point at the end? Are you convinced? Was it enough? Did these 16 chapters
get it done for you? Is it clear that Heís the Son of God? Mark didnít even let any
human voice utter that reality until near the very end. And of all strange people, itís
a Gentile, Roman centurion who is in charge of the crucifixion who says, for the first
time itís passed human lips, ìTruly this man is the Son of God.î What else is there
to say? The proof is in the resurrection.
And so, Mark is as speechless as the women because his point is proven. But this bothered
lots of folks early in church history.
Now they were used to a lot more post-resurrection history. Thereís a lot more in Matthew, a
whole lot more in Luke, and a lot more in John. It just didnít kind of seem to match.
So some have made some suggestions that Mark would have interacted with Luke, since both
were in Rome together at the same time. And maybe Luke said, ìLook, Iíve got it covered.
Iíve done pretty extensive work on post-resurrection appearances and Lukeís gospel would cover
it all.î And Lukeís had already been penned. So maybe Mark didnítÖdidnít feel like he
needed to add that.
Well, I donít know if that conversation happened. I donít know. I donít know if they agreed
on that, neither do you, neither does anybody else, so whatís the point? Speculation doesnít
work a lot in interpreting Scripture.
Others have said this, ìOh, remember now, according to one church father, Papias, Peter
was the source for Mark. Peter in Rome, Mark in Rome, Mark is in Rome writing this gospel
in Rome to the Romans and heís getting his information from Peter. And some have suggested
that Mark stopped because he didnít have access to Peter anymore because Peter got
arrested and executed.
Well maybe. I mean, thereís not a maybe about him getting arrested and executed, but maybe
it was his arrest and execution that stopped the process. But it seems to me that if the
Holy Spirit wanted to keep talking, He could.
Others might say, ìWell look, youíve got all this information in John and all this
information in Matthew, and if you go into Luke, youíve not only got everything Luke
wrote, post-resurrection in his gospel, but then he wrote the whole book of Acts. Isnít
that enough?î And you might say, ìLook, John in his gospel omitted everything on the
front end, starting his history of Jesus with the baptism of Jesus, 30 years into the story.
So if John has a late start, whatís wrong with Mark having a brief ending?
Itís possible that they thought that way. I donít know. No one knows. Iím giving you
these because this is what I read that suggested to me as the reason this thing ends the way
it does. But it is all sheer speculation. I donít know if these conversations ever
happened at all.
Another popular idea is this, look, Mark was intending to leave an open-ended rhetorical
device. Really. Do you know what Mark was intending? Really? I donít know what he was
intending, I only know what he wrote. I donít know what he was intending. I donít know
what heís thinking. Who knows what heís thinking? I canít know anybodyís intention.
So I think itís just better to stick with the text. Well letís go back to the text
and see if we canít come up with an answer from the text. Verse 8, ìThey went out and
fled from the tomb for trembling and astonishment had gripped them and they said nothing to
anyone for they were afraid.î The word tromos is the word trembling, ecstasy, transcendent,
bewilderment, the word ekstasis is the word here for astonishment. Phobia is the word
for being afraid. Very strong language to express the terrifying bewilderment that has
gripped their minds as they begin to understand that Jesus has come back to life. Yes itís
abrupt. Yes itís a shocking ending. But it is incomplete? That was the complaint. Way
back, the complaint was itís incomplete, itís inadequate, so in very early years,
very early years, second century, people started wanting to add something to Mark. Some people
said, ìWell, thereís an ending somewhere, but itís lost.î I read an entire section
advocating the lost ending theory. How in the world could you say something was lost
if you didnít know it existed? And if you did know it existed, it wouldnít be lost.
Others said, ìWell, weíve got to put an ending on this. We canítÖwe just canít
leave this.î So endings began to appear, short ones, like the little one at the end,
ìThey promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions, and after that,
Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation
of eternal salvation.î Thatís true. Right? They didnít say anything that wasnít correct
in that little ending. They just added it.
By the way, we have all kinds of manuscript evidence to know that was added later. I told
you the two most important manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both end at verse 8, as do the
other ancient manuscripts. Our translations are based on the most ancient Greek manuscripts.
And they donít have that short ending, and they certainly donít have that long ending,
verses 9 through 20.
In the fourth century, for example, two of the fathers, Eusebius and Jerome, wrote that
almost all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament end at verse 8. Did they know those other
endings existed? Yes they did. They knew they existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr
and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, Irenaeus is in 150 to 200, he knows
about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. They knew these endings existed.
They existed early. But even by the fourth century, Eusebius says, ìThe Greek manuscripts
do not include these endingsÖthe originals.î
Now if you happen to have a King James Bible, or a New King James, you will find verses
9 to 20 in the regular flow of text without brackets because the King James and the New
King James are based on a medieval textÖa medieval text, based on later texts. However,
since that time, we have discovered the earlier texts, so all the later translations, NAS,
NAS Update, ESV, NIV, etc., etc., are all based on the more ancient texts. Thatís why
if you have any of those, itís bracketed; because the earlier texts omitted it.
The external evidence indicates that this doesnít belong and itís pretty good evidence.
There are some other endings floating around too, by the way, some others that you donít
need to know about. So we would say external evidence argues for exclusion, not inclusion.
And that would pretty much cross the board with textual scholars.
Thereís also internal evidence. Youíre going to enjoy thisÖinternal evidence. Letís look
at this long endingÖthis long ending.
ìNow after He had risen fromÖrisen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared
to Mary Magdalene from whom He had cast out seven demons.î By the way, what is said here
is true. That isnít the argument. The argument isnít whether itís true, the argument is
whether itís included. I hope that what I say to you is true, but itís not Scripture.
ìShe went out and reported to those who had been with Him while they were mourning and
weeping, when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they refused to
believe it. After that, He appeared in different form to two of them while they were walking
along on their way to the country. They went away and reported it to the others, but they
didnít believe them either. Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they
were reclining at the table and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart
because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. And He said to
them, ëGo into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed
and has been baptized shall be saved, but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
These signs will accompany those who have believed in My name, they will cast out demons,
they will speak with new tongues. They will pick up serpents and if they drink any deadly
poison, it will not hurt them. They will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. So
then when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down
at the right hand of God and they went out and preached everywhere while the Lord worked
with them and confirmed the Word by the signs that followed.î
Now let me just say a few interesting things about this. The internal evidence here also
argues for exclusion. The transition from verse 8 to 9 is awkward. Verse 9 begins, ìNow,î
that necessitates continuity with the preceding narrative. However, what follows in verse
9 does not continue the story of the women. Itís talking about the women and then it
says, ìNow, after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to
Mary Magdalene.î Thereís no transition there. Itís abrupt, itís a bizarre change, lacks
continuity. He should be continuing the story of the women based on the word ìnow,î not
jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene.
Also, in verse 9 thereís a masculine pronoun, a masculine pronoun expects ìheî as its
antecedent, not the women. Why would there be a change in the pronouns? Iím just going
to go by these quickly. Why would Mark also identify Mary Magdalene as the one from whom
Jesus cast demons, seven demons. Why does he introduce her here when sheís already
been mentioned three times in the narrative. You donít introduce her at the end of the
story.
The angel spoke of Jesusí promise to appear to His followers in Galilee. All the appearances
that are recorded in this postscript are of appearances in Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark. It doesnít even read like Mark.
There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark. The structure is very
different from the familiar structure of Markís writing. The title, ìLord Jesus,î is used
here in verse 19, never used anywhere else by Mark. Thereís no reference to Peter here,
although Peter was mentioned in verse 7.
And then you have some strange themes, the theme of not believing in verses 11, 14 and
16. The theme of gospel proclamation, verses 11 through 20, they donít exist anywhere
in Mark. They seem out of bounds for the subjects that occupy him.
And then you have thrown in signs. They donít appear in any of the four gospels. In no account,
post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking
with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, laying hands on the sick. So both
internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.
You say, ìWell where did this thing come from?î Well, we donít know who it came from,
but I know where. It came fromÖsome people got together and they started picking things
out of the other gospels and out of some of the other New Testament books and putting
them together. For example, verse 9 is taken right out of Luke 8:1 to 3. Verse 10 is taken
from John 20, verse 18. Verse 12 is taken from Luke 24:13 to 32, the road to Emmaus
account. Verse 13 is taken from Luke 24. Verse 14 is taken from Luke 24:36 to 38; verse 15
is taken from Matthew 28:19, you know that. ìGo into all the world and preach the gospel
to all creation.î Thatís right out of Matthew 28:19. Verse 16 is taken right out of John
20:23 and verses 17 and 18, with all the signs and things, are drawn from a lot of sources.
Back in Matthew chapter 10, Mark chapter 6, Luke chapter 10, you remember the Lord gave
to His Apostles the power to cast out demons and to do miracles. We see the same on Pentecost.
We see the same going through the book of Acts. Weíre told by Paul writing to the Corinthians
that the signs of an Apostle were signs and wonders and mighty deeds. In the book of Acts,
we know that Paul was saved from a snake bite at the end of the book of Acts, twenty-eighth
chapter verses 3 to 6. We donít have any illustration of drinking poison, we donít
know how that got thrown in. That doesnít appear anywhere else in Scripture.
So what have we got here? Weíve got a patchwork collage that some early folks felt needed
to be thrown together, all of which is scriptural with the exception of the kind of bizarre
stuff about signs, in an attempt to help Mark get a better ending. Frankly, I think itís
a bad ending. We have all that information. Itís all kind of disjointed here. And I like
Markís ending.
So letís talk about Markís ending, and then weíll finish. Why does he end the way he
ends? Well, I think itís just the way he wrote. He started very abruptlyÖyeah, he
did. He skippedÖwell he skipped everything like John did, up to the baptism. He starts
at the baptism. What about the Elizabeth/Zacharias promise of John the Baptist? Annunciation,
the angels, the *** birth, Bethlehem, whereís that? Not here. In fact, he starts with the
ministry of John the Baptist in verse 2. And then Jesus shows up to be baptized in verse
9. He has nothing before the ministry of Jesus and he has nothing after the resurrection
of Jesus.
Heís trying to prove a point that Heís the Son of God and he proves it by following Him
in His ministry to His resurrection. I like the kind of people who make a point, and theyíre
done. I think he made his.
But thereís something else here that strikes me. The last word that Mark wrote was the
word ìafraid, fear.î Thatís kind of a key. They were afraid. Not in the sense that they
were afraid for their lives or they were afraid of being harmed or that they were in danger.
This is the word phobeo from which we get phobia, which means an irrational experience.
Theyíre literally experiencing bewilderment, amazement, astonishment, wonder. There are
no human explanations. This thing ends in wonder.
I want you to follow with me a little bit. Letís go back to chapter 1, youíre going
to enjoy this brief review of Mark. Chapter 1 verse 22, ìThey were amazed at His teaching.î
Verse 27, ìThey were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves.î He had just
cast out a demon. Go to chapter 2 verse 12, ìHe healed the paralytic, and they were all
amazed and were glorifying God saying, ëWeíve never seen anything like this.íî
Go to chapter 4 and verse 41, ìHe calmed the storm and they became very much afraid
and they said to one another, ëWho then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey
Him?íî Chapter 5 verse 15, ìThey came to Jesus and observed the man who had been demon-possessed
sitting down clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion and they
became frightened.î Chapter 5 verse 33, ìHe healed the woman with the issue of blood,
and the woman fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her came and fell
down before Him.î Verse 42, ìJesus raised the little girl from death and immediately,
verse 42 says, they were completely astounded.î Chapter 6 verse 51, He got in a boat and stopped
the storm, walked on the water and they were utterly astonished.
Go to chapter 9. This is Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration, and in verse
6, ìThey became terrified.î Go to verse 15, ìImmediately when the entire crowd saw
Him, they were amazed and began running up to greet Him.î Go to verse 32, ìHe had just
spoken of His death and resurrection, they didnít understand the statement and they
were afraid.î Go to chapter 10, verse 24, ìThe disciples were amazed at His words.î
Go to verse 32, ìThey were on the road going to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead
of them, and they were amazed and those who followed were fearful.î Chapter 11, verse
18, ìJesus goes in and attacks the temple Tuesday of Passion Week, the chief priests,
scribes heard it, began seeking how to destroy Him for they were afraid of Him, for the whole
crowd was astonished at His teaching.î
Chapter 12, verse 17, when Jesus had escaped the confrontation with the Jewish leaders,
chapter 12 and verse 17, ìHe wisely answers, ëRender to Caesar the things that are Caesarís,
to God the things that are Godís,í and they were amazed at Him.î Chapter 15 verse 5,
Jesus stands before Pilate and doesnít say anything. ìSo Pilate was amazed.î Chapter
16, verse 5, ìEntering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing
a white robeÖyou read itÖand they were amazed.î
Could I retitle this book, The Amazing Jesus? What else do you expect Mark to say to finish
then that the women fled trembling, and astonishment gripped them and they said nothing to anyone
for they were afraid?î This is absolutely consistent with how Mark ends everything.
This is his pattern and this is the most amazing thing of all. Heís used this all the way
along to punctuate absolutely everything. And he moves from one point of amazement to
the next. So it ends where it ought to end. Itís not incomplete. It ends where he loves
to end. It ends with amazement and wonder at the resurrection.
Are you amazed? Iíve been amazed since we started this thing. Iíve been amazed for
43 years. The story of Jesus is amazing. Isnít every lesson amazing? Isnít every word in
the gospel of Mark amazing? Isnít every miracle amazing? Isnít every confrontation amazing?
Isnít every insight amazing? Isnít everything about him stunning and overwhelming and why
not end it all with the glory and wonder of the resurrection that proves He is the Son
of God and we all walk away in amazement?
Iím amazed. I hope you are.
Lord, we thank You for this wonderful evening weíve been able to share together. Thank
You for the journey of all these decades and it is just one journey and weíll have more,
and we look forward to them. But my, what a journey itís been. And weíve been amazed
through the whole thing and weíre amazed now and thatís as we should be. Thank You
for the amazing Jesus and precious John MarkÖJohn Mark who had to be rescued from being an unfaithful
guy and restored and recovered from his unfaithfulness he could be used to write the history of the
amazing Jesus, and by that history, not only to prove that He is the Son of God, but that
everything about Him is absolutely amazingÖamazing.
It was amazement really, not fear that marked the women, just as it had marked them all
as they met Him. I think of the hymn, ìI stand amazed in the presence of Jesus, the
Nazarene, and wonder how He could love me, a sinner, condemned unclean. How marvelous,
how wonderful our song shall ever be, how marvelous, how wonderful is My Saviorís love
for me.î
You amaze us all the time, Lord, and Your amazement comes through Your Word it comes
through Your providential care, it comes through others in whom You live, who bring Your amazing
reality to us. It comes in the myriad ways in which You bless us. May we never lose our
wonder. May we always be like the women, walking away in amazement that who it is that loves
us gave Himself for us, rose again and ever lives to gather us into His eternal presence.
We thank You and we bless Your holy name. Amen.
There we are. Than youÖthank you. (Long applause) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.
I need to thank you because you make this, as always, a joyÖa joy.