Pentecostal hermeneutical reconsideration of the longer ending of Mark 16:9–20

Marius Nel

doi:10.4102/ve.v41i1.2089

Abstract

Many scholars accept that Mark 16:9–20 is a late addition to the gospel of Mark based on the testimony of the manuscript tradition and internal evidence. Within early Pentecostalism, Mark 16:9–20 influenced pentecostal practice and proclamation to an inordinate extent, with ‘these signs shall follow’ (v. 17) serving at the same time as a wake-up call to worldwide mission and a litmus test for the authenticity of early pentecostal experience. Most early Pentecostals used Mark 16:9–20 without giving any consideration to its originality; however, some reacted to the scholarly debate about the longer ending by discussing its relevance in terms of its canonical inclusion and value. The article discusses these canonical considerations to answer the question: If it is accepted that the passage was not part of the original manuscript, what are the implications of it being used extensively throughout the history of the church as a part of the canon, and specifically in terms of its value and prevalent use in pentecostal practice?Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article is intradisciplinary by touching issues concerning New Testament studies, hermeneutics and church history. Mark 16:9–20 is by scholarly consensus seen as a late addition to the gospel; however, Pentecostal churches have been and still are influenced by the text. If it is viewed as canonical, it calls for another way of thinking about Scripture.

Highlights

Lake states adamantly that the signs specified in Mark 16:9–20 – exorcism, glossolalia, serpent handling, poison-drinking and the laying of hands on the sick leading to their healing – were ‘God’s eternal trademark, issued by the Son of God, and sealed in His own blood’
Because of the antiquity of the longer ending, its agreement with the resurrection narratives in the other gospels, the large amount of manuscripts that contain it (Metzger 1971:124)18 and its frequent use by a variety of early Christian writers, indicating a wide and early acceptance of Mark 16:9–20 as a part of the canon of the church, the question should be asked: What are the implications for Pentecostals when ‘canon’ is defined as the church’s rule of faith, even if it includes a passage that may not have been in the original manuscript?
Other conclusions concerning the canonicity of Mark16:9– 20 are that the study of Mark will be hindered if scholars continue to neglect the longer ending, with a negative effect for preachers who need exegetical help in exegeting Mark 16:9–20 (McDill 2004:37)

Summary

Introduction

Because of the antiquity of the longer ending, its agreement with the resurrection narratives in the other gospels, the large amount of manuscripts that contain it (Metzger 1971:124) and its frequent use by a variety of early Christian writers, indicating a wide and early acceptance of Mark 16:9–20 as a part of the canon of the church, the question should be asked: What are the implications for Pentecostals when ‘canon’ is defined as the church’s rule of faith, even if it includes a passage that may not have been in the original manuscript?. It was argued that a new consensus is possible which reaffirms the longer ending as an authoritative, fitting and canonical conclusion to Mark and that translations containing it may be used confidently by the church as the Word of God for personal devotional purposes and preaching (Kelhoffer 2000:54)

Conclusion

Findings

Data availability statement