The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 16 is frequently brought up in discussions in light of the Gospel of Peace message we share. Understandably, people when considering the message often struggle with what they read and have been taught about Mark, Chapter 16. Marvin Vriend, a member of Gospelogic.com, recently shared with me an email correspondence he had been having with his friend Peter about this very bible text. The thoughts he shared with his friend displayed such clarity of thought and logic, and were so helpful to me, that I asked Marvin if I could put them up on the site. So here it is. Let me know what you think?

Mornin' Peter

I have re-considered Mark 16 recently and would be delighted to share my thoughts with you.  First of all, let me say that I will comment on it from my more recent paradigm if you will.  My previous paradigm, I think you and I both are aware of.  I don't claim to have a watertight understanding of this text, but was provoked with the following considerations:

Of note is that Jesus himself had told them that he would rise from the dead, and the Angel reminded them of that.

Why were they unable to believe one of their own?  Did they think she was lying, or imagining things?  Jesus himself had told them he would rise from the dead.

Again we see this incredible unbelief.  They are clinging onto their mourning and weeping.  They are confronted by their own again saying that Jesus is alive from the dead.  Now they again refuse to believe not only Jesus' words prior to the cross, but a very reliable source from their own company.

One translation reads:  because of their refusal to believe.  So now they are confronted with Jesus himself alive from the dead.  Jesus gets on their case with their unbelief and hardness of heart.  They knew it was him - but certainly not "by faith."  They simply could not deny their own intellect any longer.  And look what Jesus says next to this patently unbelieving (stubborn, heardhearted and refusing to believe in Jesus' estimation) group of people.

He commissions them to go preach the gospel.  He doesn't lead them first in a sinners prayer, or get them to repent, or get them born again.  Instead he tells them to go preach???  They don't seem real ready or qualified to me.  The only change in heart is that they had a change of mind.  They are now unable to not believe.  Why doesn't Jesus make sure they are "right with God first?"

Could it be that the reason we see no evidence of Jesus attempting to get them right with God is that because that is the farthest thing from his mind.  Could it be that the obvious thing in his mind is that all have been made righteous through his now completed death, burial and ressurection, including this hard hearted bunch.  What seems to be at stake in Jesus mind here is not belief that produces redemption, but rather belief that produces salvation (deliverance from a law governed relationship with God.) 

If Jesus was commissioning them to go present the offer for redemption that is being presented by evangelical christianity today, would he not surely get the very first converts started on the right foot?  Would he not set a pattern for them to follow?

Here Jesus gets back to the issue at hand - "unbelief."  He was addressing this group of his own - patent unbelievers in the truest sense.  And then he gives the stakes:  Salvation will come through believing and condemnation will be the result of unbelief.  Now we have been conditioned to see this in an eternal sense.  I will admit - this is the most popular opinion of this text.  My view on this text today is that Jesus was saying that unbelief will cause one to remain under the curse of the law in their own heart and mind.  Yes, the word "damned" is the same word as "condemned."   

Could this be Paul's understanding when he spoke of the law as the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation.  A law based relationship with God is one of obligation and penalty for non compliance.  Depending on one's view and understanding of this text - Jesus was either speaking in support of such a view or in opposition to such a view.

Then Jesus does not hang around to help these poor examples of faith get it started on the right foot.  If all of humanity is still in the balance between heaven and hell at this point, I will never understand why Jesus could just leave and put his feet up.  Is God himself is depending on these folks to portray his redemption to humanity in such a way as to get them to exercise faith correctly to trigger their own personal salvation?  Did Jesus do all he did to provide an opportunity, a chance for salvation. Did He leave the final result up to man's choice?  Is this the gospel he had in mind for them to go preach?

The word Gospel is good news.  A new plan of how you can get right with God through believing I guess by some stretch of the imagination could be construed as good news.  This would be in the same way that news of the Amway opportunity is good news to your financial security dilemma.  This would be addressing your problem with a solution that works when you co-operate with "the plan."  This is a classic compliance model plan.  I believe you and I both know that compliance model plans a fraught with hiding, control and severed relationships.  This however is a far cry from the concept of good news that all men's sin was paid in full at the cross and that that payment has concluded all under righteousness without their participation.  This news would produce true faith in my opinion a whole lot quicker than a plan for you to participate in.  Now, I agree with Jesus words above, if you don't believe, you remain under the condemnation of the law.  The law and it's power to produce death will hold a man made righteous at the cross under a reality that exists only in his mind.  In my opinion, the only thing powerful enough to set my heart free from it's demands for justice is to see all justice satisfied at the cross.  This story when assimilated into the heart produces the freedom that we were originally intended for.  The only thing powerful enough to keep my heart separated from this freedom is confidence in my compliance to achieve what only Christ could and did achieve.  One little false belief in one insignificant little soul can stop the most awesome power of God on the planet, and that is why Jesus gave the stakes he did regarding believing in Mark 16.  But the believing part is about believing in His works.  Is it possible that Evangelical Christianity's presentation has in the name of faith turned the intended revelation on it's head?

The word "evangelist" means messenger of good.  Is the good news freedom from the obligation to law as the mediator in our relationship with God or is it a new and better way to comply with God's requirements.  With this compliance view, then we are left to start new denominations and fight over scripture interpretations, evidencing the fact that our confidence is not in the cross, but our confidence is in us getting it right.  I'm tired of the attempt to get it right.  I'm willing to admit that if the world's redemption is hanging on people like me getting pumped with the latest evangelistic program at church, then surely unbelievers have a slim chance.  But this idea of telling men that they are redeemed at the cross, and they can choose to believe it if they so choose, and that if they choose, they will experience a profound freedom in their heart from the tyranny of their own inherent self righteousness, and begin a real relationship with the essence and person of Love,... this idea I found stirs me in the depths of my being.  A stirring I have longed for and believed was meant to be present in my relationship with God.

There's plenty more to sort out.  But it comes down to this:  Is the good news good because I can be made righteous or is it good because I have been made righteous.  Which way would you in your heart prefer it to be?

Those are my thoughts as you so graciously requested.  I do so appreciate the opportunity to communicate as these things are still being sorted out and weighed and considered as we speak.  Thank you for your friendship, especially in light of changing views.