Abner Jones (1772-1841) was a doctor in New England who would eventually abandon his medical practice in order to preach the gospel. This journey – which resulted in him being regarded as an early figure in the Restoration Movement – began when he started questioning the Baptists for having a name, articles of faith, and church covenants that were foreign to the New Testament.
“When I presented these things before the minister…he could not recollect the passages of scripture that proved these things, but said they were necessary. The reason why he could not remember them was, because they were not in the bible.
“When I mentioned these things to my brethren, they seemed almost as much astonished, as though I had denied the bible, saying that I was wild, &c.
“At that time I viewed myself alone on the earth, not knowing of any one that believed with me” (Abner Jones: A Collection, p. 60).
It is probably not too surprising that this minister would not answer these questions. Abner Jones recognized that these things were not in the Bible; therefore, no passage could be produced that would authorize such things.
However, it is important to notice the reaction of his brethren when he told them about this. Rather than questioning the minister for not being able to give an answer from the Scriptures, they instead reacted as though Abner Jones himself had denied the Bible. In other words, even though the minister was the one who could not produce a passage in support of his beliefs, Abner Jones was one who was regarded by his brethren as leaving the Scriptures. Paul warned Timothy of those like this who would reject the truth for teachers who would tell them what they wanted to hear rather than what the word of God said (2 Timothy 4:3-4). As a result of this response, Jones began to feel isolated from others.
During this time, he also began to question to doctrines of Calvinism that were so prominent during in his day – particularly among the Baptists. He was trying to reconcile an inconsistency that he observed in the doctrine – if God had already determined who would be saved and who would be damned, and the lost could not do anything to change their fate, why would the gospel need to be preached to the lost? After all, if they were predestined to condemnation, there would be no point in appealing to them to believe in Christ and obey the gospel. Then he considered Jesus’ statement about the Holy Spirit: “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment…But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth…” (John 16:8, 13). Then he reached the following conclusion:
“The thought struck my mind, why does it not guide all men into the truth? The answer was, because they will not follow it. Here my mind was brought out of a dark, narrow prison, into the clear sunshine of a free gospel offered to all men; and in such a manner as that they might really partake of it” (p. 61).
The truth of the gospel is that all can be saved if they will believe in Christ and obey His word. Jesus told His apostles, “Go 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” (Mark 16:15-16). Paul wrote, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Titus 2:11). The gospel is God’s power for salvation (Romans 1:16) and Jesus invites all to come to Him (Mathew 11:28-30). However, this was contrary to the commonly accepted Calvinistic doctrines of the day – that God predetermined individually who would be saved and no one else could have any hope of escaping eternal punishment.
Despite this realization by which his “soul was set at liberty” (p. 61), Jones was reluctant at first to preach this message.
“When I came to think on the subject, I dare not communicate it to my brethren, supposing that they would call me a worse heretic than they did before; so I hid my light under a bed of Calvinism, which brought great darkness on my mind. And I do not remember of divulging it to any person, for more than five years” (p. 61-62).
The lesson we should learn from this is about the powerful influence of those around us – particularly among those with whom we have enjoyed fellowship and religious likemindedness. Paul described how Peter was led into hypocrisy because he wanted to conform to the thinking of certain Jewish brethren (Galatians 2:11-12) and how Barnabas was pressured into silently accepting and going along with Peter into hypocrisy (Galatians 2:13). The same thing can happen today – we can be led into sin or into silently accepting the sins of others because they are brethren with whom we have had a long-standing relationship.
Eventually Abner Jones gathered up the courage to preach against the errors of Calvinism. However, he first had to overcome the desire for acceptance from those within his religious fellowship and replace it with a stronger desire to please the Lord and be faithful to His word. Paul wrote, “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). We need to value truth more than the acceptance of our religious neighbors and seek to please the Lord rather than man.
This article got me to thinking (again) about how we use the word
‘represents” during the Lord’s Supper. Jesus did not use it. If he had used it probably the disciples who left Him would not have left. Does this mean that His not using it contains a powerful message to His followers?
The Mark 16 passage is highly in doubt based on the textual evidence.
Cameron, the end of Mark 16 is not nearly as unreliable as critics make it out to be. This article addresses that question: The Strongest Argument Against Mark 16:9-20.
Besides, even if someone could prove that Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original text, there is nothing in that section of verses that is not verified elsewhere in the New Testament.
Robert, I’m not sure I follow. Could you elaborate?
Here is the evidence from Metzger:
16:9–20 The Ending(s) of Mark
Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112 al), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.” All of these witnesses except itk also continue with verses 9–20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (I.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20 (τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ ὃν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ οἱ ἀπόστολοι αὐτοῦ ἐξελθόντες πανταχοῦ ἐκήρυξαν).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: “And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now’—thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness that is in heaven.’ ”
How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ἁμαρτάνω, ἀπολογέω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστρέφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, ὅρος, προσλέγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.
The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9–20 are non-Markan (e. g. ἀπιστέω, βλάπτω, βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετὰ ταῦτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ὕστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανάσιμον and τοῖς μετʼ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9–20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15:47 and 16:1); the other women of verses 1–8 are now forgotten; the use of ἀναστὰς δέ and the position of πρῶτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1–8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1–8 and 9–20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.
The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark’s Gospel.
Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9–20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9–20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with a few lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
SHORTER ENDING
For a discussion of the shorter ending, see the section (2) in the comments on verses 9–20 above. The reading Ἰησοῦς is to be preferred to the others, which are natural expansions. It is probable that from the beginning the shorter ending was provided with a concluding ἀμήν, and that its absence from several witnesses (L cop ms ethmost ethmss) is due either to transcriptional oversight or, more probably, to the feeling that ἀμήν is inappropriate when verses 9–20 follow.
VARIANT READINGS WITHIN [MARK] 16.9–20
Since the passage 16:9–20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts that normally serve to identify types of text, it is not always easy to make decisions among alternative readings. In any case it will be understood that the several levels of certainty ({A}, {B}, {C}) are within the framework of the initial decision relating to verses 9 to 20 as a whole.
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 102–106.
Cameron, the article I linked above addressed some of what you posted. This article goes into more detail: Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?
But as I already said, for the sake of argument, even if someone could prove that Mark 16:9-20 was not in the original text, there is nothing in that section of verses that is not verified elsewhere in the New Testament.
Solo Scriptura or Sola Scriptura?
I don’t know what you mean by your question.
Solo Scriptura = Overall, I will not use any information outside of the Bible except in really rare occurrences to come to doctrinal decisions. “Solo” meaning really alone. Individualism reins, church history is really tainted, and we need to restore what has been lost.
Sola Scriptura = What the Reformers taught (including post Reformers like Hodge, Warfield, etc) that Scriptura is supreme, (better term is Suprema Scriptura) but outside information (church fathers, creeds, etc) has to be used as an essential guide, though it is not infallible. But this cuts down on hyper-individualism.