Disputed Ending of Mark 16.

[rstrats]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

 

[drich0150]

Col 2:

8 (T)See to it that no one takes you captive through (U)philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the (V)elementary principles of the world, [h]rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the (W)fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been (X)made [i]complete, and (Y)He is the head [j]over all (Z)rule and authority; 11 and in Him (AA)you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of (AB)the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been (AC)buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also (AD)raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who (AE)raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were (AF)dead [k]in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He (AG)made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out (AH)the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and (AI)He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had [l](AJ)disarmed the (AK)rulers and authorities, He (AL)made a public display of them, having (AM)triumphed over them through [m]Him. 16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are (AT)a mere shadow of what is to come; but the [p]substance [q]belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep [r](AU)defrauding you of your prize by (AV)delighting in [s]self-abasement and the worship of the angels, [t]taking his stand on visions he has seen, [u](AW)inflated without cause by his (AX)fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to (AY)the head, from whom (AZ)the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and [v]ligaments, grows with a growth [w]which is from God.

 

[drich0150]

..

 

[food4thought]

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.
　
I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: "Quote a published author who has done that." - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

You won't find, or at least SHOULDN'T find, any author that states Mark 16:9 as the only place that teaches the resurrection on the first day of the week. The teaching is also found in Luke:

Luk 24:1 NKJV Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.

Let me also say that the scripture from Collosians 2 that drich quoted should put to rest the whole argument of when to gather together. If that isn't enough, here are a few more:

Rom 14:5-6 NKJV One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. (6) He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Gal 4:9-11 NKJV But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? (10) You observe days and months and seasons and years. (11) I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Hope this helps;
Mike

 

[rstrats]

drich150,

I'm afraid I don't see where your post #2 identifies an author. I wonder if you might explain?

 

[rstrats]

food4thought,

　
re: "The teaching [resurrection on the first day of the week] is also found in Luke:...24:1..."

I don’t see where the verse says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. It only says that the women came to the tomb on the first day of the week. Only Mark 16:9 says that it occurred on the first day.

 

[food4thought]

food4thought,

　
re: "The teaching [resurrection on the first day of the week] is also found in Luke:...24:1..."

I don’t see where the verse says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. It only says that the women came to the tomb on the first day of the week. Only Mark 16:9 says that it occurred on the first day.

Splitting hairs just a bit, aren't we? All the Gospels record the women going to the tomb early on the first day, and it is implied that shortly before they arrived was when the Lord was resurrected.

Do you have a reason for needing an answer to this other than the argument? 'Cause really, the whole argument of gathering on Sunday verses gathering on Saturday is really pointless in light of the other scriptures we quoted.

 

[drich0150]

drich150,

I'm afraid I don't see where your post #2 identifies an author. I wonder if you might explain?

Gladly, you made this statement:

then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9.

Paul's work (the author of Colossians) in Col 2 frees us from 7th day observances (1day observances as well) and allows us the freedom to worship on whatever day we wish.

First day observances are not a command, but a tribute. this makes the argument/observation you have made on Mark 16:9 moot.

 

[ViaCrucis]

First day observances are not a command, but a tribute. this makes the argument/observation you have made on Mark 16:9 moot.

Agreed.

Even without Mark 16:9 the collective witness of the New Testament is that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. There is no implication of a sixth day resurrection in the New Testament, it's that Jesus rose on the first day that the New Testament continually points out, even if most often it's implied.

But consider the disciples talking on the road to Emmaus,

“But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. “Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive.”

Note they say "today is the third day", i.e. it's the very day Jesus rose from the dead. This wasn't on the Sabbath, but the first day of the week.

Throughout the Acts the followers of Jesus meet together liturgically on the first day of the week, where they prayed together, meditated on the teaching they received from the Apostles, partook of the Eucharistic supper, etc.

We don't come together on the first day of the week due to a commandment to do so, we do so because we have always done so in honor and tribute to the Resurrection of our Lord. The first day of the week has, in our worship, been transformed not into a new sabbath, but transformed into the symbolic day of God's renewal of creation. That's why early Christians referred to Sunday as the eighth day, the day which in Christ God has begun anew His creative work. It's why the number eight and octagonal shapes feature prominently in Christian art and architecture. Octagonal baptismal fonts have been exceedingly common since antiquity for this reason, as eight is symbolic of redemption, regeneration, and new creation.

Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath. The Christian Sabbath isn't a day of the week, but is the life we have in Christ. Sunday is, rather, a weekly Easter, a weekly celebration of Christ's resurrection and a time to gather and share in corporate prayer and worship as we recall the works of God and bring forth our praise and thanksgiving as a living sacrifice rendered unto God for all that He has done, is doing and is going to do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

There's also a question of what you mean by when the resurrection occurred. I'm not sure that the longer ending to Mark is describing an event separate from his appearance to the women. I wouldn't think the church would have celebrated an aspect of the Resurrection that none of the Gospel-writers seem interested in. How would they even know? The disappearance of a body inside the tomb wouldn't be visible. So Jesus would have had to tell them, and I don't see anywhere where he is described doing that or it's even implied. As far as I can see, the resurrection is not distinguished from the women discovering the empty tomb and encountering Jesus.

Indeed even Jesus may not have experienced anything before that. In John he tells Mary Magdelene that he hasn't returned to his Father yet. Unless we're to imagine him spending a day sitting in a closed tomb alone, I see no reason to think that there's anything before that Sunday morning.

 

[talitha]

My problem with discussions about the Sabbath is this: Observation of the Sabbath (according to the Old Covenant) does not necessarily include gathering with other believers; it's about rest / refraining from labor. Many who claim to observe the Sabbath seem to object to people's gathering to worship on Sunday, but they do not ask whether they practice Sabbath, or when, in terms of resting. I really think the New Testament is clear - Christ IS our Sabbath - when we enter the new covenant, we enter into rest - a ceasing of our labor because "it is finished".

As for what day we gather - it's helpful to gather on the same day others are gathering....... lol - I don't think it matters when.

 

[rstrats]

food4thought,

re: "Splitting hairs just a bit, aren't we?"

I don’t see how. Either scripture definitively says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week or it doesn’t. Only Mark 16:9 says that it did.
　


re: "All the Gospels record the women going to the tomb early on the first day, and it is implied that shortly before they arrived was when the Lord was resurrected."

I’m not aware of any definitive implications. What do you have in mind?
　


re: "Do you have a reason for needing an answer to this other than the argument?"

For the purpose of this topic the only reason is the one that I state in the OP.

 

[rstrats]

drich150,

re: "Paul's work (the author of Colossians) in Col 2 frees us from 7th day observances (1day observances as well)..."

I see nothing in Colossians 2 that can be taken no other way than to mean what you are saying.
　
　

re: "First day observances are not a command, but a tribute. this makes the argument/observation you have made on Mark 16:9 moot."

Maybe so, but I don’t see how that is relevant to my request for an author.

 

[drich0150]

drich150,
re: "Paul's work (the author of Colossians) in Col 2 frees us from 7th day observances (1day observances as well)..."

I see nothing in Colossians 2 that can be taken no other way than to mean what you are saying.

　
　Perhaps you could take the time to read the embolden part of the passage i originally left.

Here it is again from (Colossians 2 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version))

2:16 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων​

English (KJV)

Strong'sRoot Form (Greek)TenseLet g2919 κρίνω krinō

no g3361μή mē

man g5100τις tis

therefore g3767οὖν oun

judge g2919 κρίνω krinō

you g5209ὑμᾶς hymas

in g1722ἐν en

meat, g1035βρῶσις brōsis

or g2228ἤ ē

in g1722ἐν en

drink, g4213πόσις posis

or g2228ἤ ē

in g1722ἐν en

respect g3313μέρος meros

of an holyday, g1859ἑορτή heortē

or g2228ἤ ē

of the new moon, g3561νεομηνία neomēnia

or g2228ἤ ē

of the sabbath g4521σάββατον sabbaton

[days]:

Here is a link to the translation of sabbaton:Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Pay close attention to the lexicon note about Paul's usage of the term.

re: "First day observances are not a command, but a tribute. this makes the argument/observation you have made on Mark 16:9 moot."

Maybe so, but I don’t see how that is relevant to my request for an author.

I answered that request with the posting of Colossians 2. Not only did i give the Author in the name of the book, i gave the relevant material, that should have answered any legitimate question you had about first or seventh day worship. The only thing left to argue is one's pride on the matter.

 

[rstrats]

drich150,

re: "Perhaps you could take the time to [re] read the embolden part of the passage i originally left."

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see what Colossians 2 - embolden or not - has to do with my request for an author as stated in the OP.
　
　

re: "Here is a link to the translation of sabbaton:Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon Pay close attention to the lexicon note about Paul's usage of the term."

Again, I just don’t see the point you are trying to make with regard to the request in the OP.
　
　


re: "I answered that request with the posting of Colossians 2. Not only did i give the Author in the name of the book..."

I wonder if you might point out where you gave the name of an author who argues for a change of observance from the seventh day to the first day because of a first day resurrection and who uses Mark 16:9 to support a first day resurrection?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Was Luke's Gospel an acceptable response? I pointed out that the disciples walking along the road to Emmaus mention that "today is the third day" i.e. the day Jesus rose which also happened to be the first day of the week. That is, the text says "that very day" corresponding to the first day of the week when the women brought spices to the tomb and the tomb was found empty. Thus the third day (the day Jesus rose) corresponds to the first day of the week as per the narrative in Luke 24.

That seems fairly straightforward all in all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rstrats]

ViaCrucis,

re: "Was Luke's Gospel an acceptable response?"

Not if the crucifixion took place on the 4th day of the week.

 

[ebia]

As pointed out, anything other than a Sunday resurrection makes a complete dog's breakfast of Luke 24. But even more so of John 20. John's whole theology is build around a timetable of day 6 crucifixion, day 7 in the tomb, day 8/1 - resurrection => beginning of new creation.

No gospel except the dodgy ending of Mark actually spells out that Jesus rose on Sunday completely explicitly, but its the only natural reading of any of them, and John & Paul both build huge theological weight on that being the case.

 

[ViaCrucis]

ViaCrucis,

re: "Was Luke's Gospel an acceptable response?"

Not if the crucifixion took place on the 4th day of the week.

Why would it have?

Also, the text clearly says that the first day of the week is the third day "since all these things happened", i.e. Jesus' death.

Friday - Saturday - Sunday
1st day - 2nd day - 3rd day

I really fail to comprehend how one would get a Wednesday crucifixion based on the clarity of the text in Luke. After all "third day since these things" is very different than "fifth day since these things".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rstrats]

Since it's been awhile, perhaps someone new looking in will know of an author.