Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

The Program Services Dept. of the Tennessee Baptist Convention (P.O. Box 647, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027) is circulating a tract by J. Walter Carpenter entitled Water Baptism. God commended the people of Berea because they carefully examined the message of Paul by searching the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11). Surely Mr. Carpenter and the Baptists of Tennessee will not object if we do the same thing.

The author of the tract says he had to study Greek and go to college majoring in Greek before he could show baptism was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. It seems he once believed it was necessary as a part of “the plan of salvation” and even preached it from “the age of sixteen.” Apparently, if he had continued to preach what the Bible says in the English language, he would still be preaching baptism “is essential to salvation.” But after “hundreds of hours” study in “Greek grammar and the Greek text,” he finally decided he could write an article proving baptism is not necessary (contrary to the admitted teaching of the. English translations). This raises an interesting question. Cannot we find the truth in our English translations, or must we be Greek scholars to be saved? Many of us do well enough to understand ordinary English; if the Lord has hidden the truth from all but scholars of ancient histories, languages, and grammars, then many of us will be lost! The common man just cannot make it to heaven! It is strange indeed that when Christ taught, “the common people heard him gladly,” and when Paul preached, “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, nor many noble” answered the call of the gospel (Mark 12:37; I Corinthians 1:26).

“Jesus answered, verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Mr. Carpenter says on page three that John 3:5 does not refer to baptism. Being “born of water” refers to “natural physical birth.” This will not work because Nicodemus asked the Lord to explain the new birth, not the old one. Jesus said in verse 3, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The natural physical birth was no mystery to Nicodemus and he did not ask about it. But the idea of being “born again” did puzzle him, so he asked, “How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (vs. 4). Jesus spoke of being born again and Nicodemus asked how does it happen. When Jesus answered the question of how to be born again, he said, “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” No matter how hard men try to make it go away, Jesus put the water in the new birth just as surely as he put the Spirit.

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Mr. Carpenter says in discussing this passage, “This Scripture bothered me more than any other” (pp. 4-7). He has decided baptism cannot be for the remission of sins for the following reasons:

(1) Salvation is ” ‘by grace’ on God’s part.” We all agree salvation is the gift of God’s grace. Nothing we can ever do can make us so wonderful and worthy that God would be obligated to save us. Still, a gift of God may be conditioned upon obedience; in other words, He gives the gift when we obey what He commands. In Joshua 6:2, “The Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thins hand Jericho,” and in the next few verses He commanded the people to. march “about the city” for six days, one time per day, then seven times on the seventh day, and then to “blow with the trumpets.” When they obeyed, “the wall fell down flat” and they received the gift (vs. 20). A gift does not exclude obedience. Baptism is required for the gift of salvation.

(2) Salvation is ” `through faith’ on man’s part.” We all agree that faith is necessary for salvation, but faith does not exclude obedience. Faith pleases God and brings His grace when faith moves man to obedience. “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed” (Hebrews 11:8). Faith does not save before obedience, but faith saves at the point of obedience. By faith we must be baptized for the remission of sins.

(3) “We are saved by the blood of Jesus without any merit on our own.” Salvation by the blood of Christ does not exclude obedience. Christ shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28), yet we must be baptized “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). “Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8), but “know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3).

(4) Mr. Carpenter says the word “for” in Acts 2:38 (“for the remission of sins”) is similar in meaning to the word “at” in Luke 11:32 (“at the preaching of Jonah”). In other words, we are to be baptized “at (by which he means because of) the remission of sins,” not for the remission of sins. He tries to make his argument by discussing technicalities of Greek grammar which it took him “hundreds of hours” to master.

Whether one knows Greek or English, he can understand the clear parallel of Acts 2:28 (“for the remission of sins”) and Matthew 26:28 (“for the remission of sins”). Matthew says Christ shed his blood ‘for the remission of sins.” What does that mean? (a) He shed his blood because of our sins having already been forgiven before he shed his blood? or (b) He shed his blood in order to obtain the forgiveness of our sins? The answer is obvious. Whatever “for the remission of sins” means in Matthew 26:28, it means in Acts 2:38. When Jesus shed his blood, that was the divine part in salvation-bringing remission of sins. When we . are baptized, that is our part in salvation-bringing remission of sins.

Furthermore, Mr. Carpenter will not apply his own explanation! He says, “Acts 2:38 may correctly be translated ‘repent and be baptized in (or on the basis of) the remission of sins.’ ” If this means one is saved before baptism, it means he is saved before repentance. But Mr. Carpenter does not believe one is saved before repentance because he says, “Repentance is clearly demanded as the first step.” So he thinks repentance is the very first thing that must happen before salvation. He destroys his own doctrine of repentance when he says Acts 2:38 means one must repent and be baptized to show that he is already saved.

Mr. Carpenter apparently claims to have studied the Greek very carefully as a Baptist. “When God gave me the answer from the Greek text I knew that I was a ‘Baptist’ . . . .” But Baptist scholars who have studied the Greek and translated the New Testament do not translate Acts 2:38 like Mr. Carpenter says it should be. Here is how his own Baptist scholars translate: (a) “Peter said to them, ‘You must repent-and, as an expression of it, let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ-that you may have your sins forgiven;” (Charles B. Williams Translation, 1950 edition). (b) ” ‘Repent,’ answered Peter, ‘and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins . . .’ ” (H. B. Montgomery Translation, 1924).

“And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Mr. Carpenter found it difficult to change the meaning of this verse, as he says, “This verse was the last to clear up for me.” After doing much additional study on “the Greek tense,” then giving much thought for “several years” more, he finally decided “that the phrase ‘and wash away thy sins’ logically went with the phrase which followed, ‘calling on His name.’ ” So then he decided “Paul was saved when he called on the Lord on the road to Damascus . . . .” Baptism would be needed only to show others “Saul had genuinely become a child of God ‘by means of calling on His name’ ” (see pp. 7-9).

If Saul had already been saved when he spoke to the Lord on the Damascus road, why does Ananias now tell him three days later, “Why tarriest thou? Arise . . . and wash away thy sins.”His sins were not yet forgiven!

It is true that “wash away thy sins” is connected to the last part of the verse (“calling on the name of the Lord”). But it is equally connected with the first part of the verse (“arise and be baptized”). The word “and” is a connecting word; “and” joins things together. A simple reading of the verse shows “wash away. thy sins” is joined and connected with “arise and be baptized” as well as with “calling on the name of the Lord.”

Mr. Carpenter ,makes two major errors: First, he says Paul’s sins were already washed away when the Bible says they were not. Ananias tells Paul to do what Mr. Carpenter says Paul had already done-“wash away thy sins.” Second, he chops off the first part of the verse and says “wash away thy sins” is connected only to the last part. We cannot chop up the Bible that way and please God.

“. . . In the days of Noah . . . few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21). This is amazing! Mr. Carpenter is going to try to add the word “not” to 1 Peter 3:2021. The verse says in part, “baptism doeth also now save us” and Mr. Carpenter wants it to say that baptism doth also now not save us. Here are the arguments he gives to prove baptism does not save us (pp. 9-10):

(1) The people in the ark were saved “not by immersion, but by riding on top of the water.” But Peter’s comparison is not based on whether some one is in or on top of water; it is based on the simple fact of being “saved by water.”

(2) The people in the ark received “escape from death, not a salvation from sin.” Peter’s comparison l is not based on exactly what some one was saved from, but on the simple fact of being “saved by water.”

(3) “Only Jesus saves . . . .” Jesus is our only Savior, but he will save us only if we obey his will (Heb. 5:8-9). The question is not what Jesus does, but what we must do to receive salvation; the Bible says, “baptism doth also save us.”

(4) Baptism must be taken with the phrase “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.” We agree the purpose of baptism is not to wash dirt off the body. The question is this: does baptism also now save us? What does the Bible say?

(5) Baptism is for “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” We agree on this. The question is, what shall we teach the consciences of people: (a) baptism doth also now save us? or (b) baptism doth also now not save us?

Mr. Carpenter’s effort to insert “not” in 1 Peter 3:21 is no better than Satan’s effort to insert “not” in Genesis 2:17 (“in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”).

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). Here is another amazing case. The Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mr. Carpenter tries to explain it so as to get the word “not” added in; he wants it to read, “He that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved.” Here are the reasons he gives for claiming Mark 16:16 does not require baptism for salvation (pp. 10-12):

(1) This is a “spurious” passage; that means someone “added” it to the Bible-a claim that simply means Mr. Carpenter wants to subtract it or take it out. Remember, he wants it out because it does not have not where he wants it.

(2) The verse might mean, “He that believeth and is committed (to Christ in heart and life) shall be saved.” If that is what it means, what must be done in order to become saved and fully committed to Christ? Be baptized! How does this help?

(3) “. . . salvation from sin is ‘by faith’ on man’s part . . . this `one essential’, is mentioned first . . . .” The verse does not say anything about one essential; it gives at least two. The verse includes faith, but he wants it to say “faith only’=”he that believeth only and is not baptized shall be saved.” Shall we obey Christ or Carpenter?

Mr. Carpenter’s last argument is that the Bible “will not permit the salvation of a soul from sin to be based upon faith plus any kind of work.” So, now he wants to take a “not” out of the Bible! Listen to James 2:24, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not q faith only.” The Bible says not by faith only. We must take either the word of men or the word of God-there is no middle ground.

The very scriptures Mr. Carpenter tries to remove still stand unmoved. The word of God liveth and abideth forever. Let us search the scriptures to know what is true. Then let us obey God’s word-“seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22).

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 458-460
May 29, 1975

By Larry A. McKee

Every generation has its rebels, idealists, drop-outs, and anarchists. We have ours but they have developed no new insights into life’s problems, nor are they any worse in their reactions or less radical in their solutions than their predecessors. Many Christians view this anarchy which exists in many quarters as an unsolvable problem and as proof that an end has come to our way of life. Yet this does not have to be the case. It is the purpose of this article to reflect on a period of history very similar to our own and, through it, to understand and hopefully help the young people in our homes and churches.

Few periods of history more closely parallel the anarchy presently among some of our youth than that of Russia in the late 1800’s. A study of this period is a study of Nihilism. Nihilism is defined by Webster as “the doctrine that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake, independent of any constructive program.” The term was first used in 1862 by Turgueniev in his celebrated novel Fathers And Children. However, the best discussion of Nihilism I have found is in the Encyclopedia Britannica (the 17th edition, 1911), Vol. 19. (The “scholarship” of modern liberal intellectuals has become so biased that they cannot treat the subject objectively.)

External Manifestations of Nihilism

This revealing article relates that Turgueniev noticed among the students of the universities, “young men and women in slovenly attire, who called in question and ridiculed the generally received convictions and respectable conventionalities of social life, and who talked of reorganizing society on strictly scientific principles. They reversed the traditional order of things even in trivial matters of external appearance, the males allowing the hair to grow long and the female adepts cutting it short and adding sometimes the additional badge of blue spectacles. Their appearance, manners and conversation were apt to shock ordinary people, but to this they were profoundly indifferent . . . and rather liked to scandalize people still under the influence of what they considered antiquated prejudices.” Does this not sound familiar? The three methods used to “shock ordinary people” by 19th century Nihilists are the same used by 20th century revolutionaries. Their appearance, manners (morals), and conversation say little of civilization, “intellectualism” or even intelligence. It is true we are shocked by the filthy language and immoral behavior of these “saviors of the world.” Their actions are calculated to alienate not only the hard-core revolutionary but all young people from decent, moral, and respectable persons and polarize themselves into a community bent upon destruction.

It might be well to make an observation at this point. Many parents and preachers make the mistake of opposing the trifle (old clothes, etc.) with the same fervor as immorality, even putting them in the same class. This helps no one but the rebels because it only clouds the real issues. Our young people are honest and intelligent. If you present the facts to them in a reasonable manner, they usually will see the truth and take the proper action. But when, for example, their style of dress (not decency) is made a condition of goodness and they are forced to conform to the traditions of their elders, they are blinded to the real problem and are made to chose between their peers and their parents. Many times the choice is made for rebellion because we got the cart before the horse. Jesus compared this to making the outside of the cup and platter clean but not the inside. There are vital issues involved here which must be impressed on our young people if they are to make a rational choice. It is sad when adults try to keep teenagers off the wrong path but are not able to discuss anything deeper than trivia, leading them to believe that blue jeans and old army coats are the issue.

For those who live like the ostrich with their heads in the sand, let this encyclopedia spell out what is to be destroyed. “Among the antiquated institutions which had to be abolished as obstructions to real progress, were religion, family life, private property and centralized administration. Religion was to be replaced by the exact sciences, family life by free love, private property by collectivism and centralized administration by a federation of independent communes” (emphasis mine, LM). Remember, dear reader, these quotes afire not about the United States in the 1960’s and 1970’s but of Russia in the 1860’s and 1870’s. They do not tell of the terrorism, murder of police and government officials or the liquidation of comrades suspected of treachery. Yet it reads like one of our local newspapers simply because the same underlying cause is involved, namely, youth without real values. You see, they too had been taught the “fashionable doctrine of evolution” which takes God away from man and replaces Him with a pseudo-science devoid of morality. Man, to the evolutionist, is just an animal. An animal has no morality. He has no decency. He has no respect for authority or the rights of others, or even himself. With this theory of evolution as their spiritual standard, they helped bring about the slavery not only of the Russian people by Communism, but also of one-third of the world’s population. Now we see our own youth being led down the same road with the same lies. As you can see freedom and morality, yea, even Christianity, are the real issues.

You Must Take the Offense

But there is an answer, an answer to every fearful, tearful, and prayerful parent. Take your children, while they are small, and fill them so full of God, His love and His laws that there will be no room for the foolishness and wiles of the devil. Teach them respect for you, for others, and for themselves by teaching them respect for God and His will. It’s up to you as a parent to follow the direction of Almighty God given in Deut. 6:7-9. “And thou shall teach them (the words of God-LM) diligently unto thy children, and thou shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.”

It’s an awesome responsibility to be a parent. When teenagers go through their “stages,” looking and acting like teenagers, it takes the patience of Job. When teenagers are faced with temptation from every side, it takes the wisdom of Solomon. When teenagers are bombarded with evolution, atheisn4, and immorality, it takes the faith of Abraham. Children cannot raise themselves to serve God, and they cannot avoid the pitfalls of life without our experience. If we do not begin today to train our children in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord,” we will lose everything. We will lose our freedom, our homes, and our opportunity to save souls. But most important of all we will lose our children. Either we will mold them into faithful children of God or watch them prepare for a burning hell as children of the devil. You will make the difference!

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 457-458
May 29, 1975

By Amos Davenport

Joshua and Caleb were men of faith and action. Their report was an enthusiastic “Let us go up and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.” The other ten spies said, “We be not able to go up against the people for they are stronger than we” (Num. 13). The ten may have been correct in their comparison of the physical strength of the two groups of people, but theirs was a report of excuses rather than faith and action. All twelve of the spies knew that, since the days of Abraham, God had promised to give His people the land. They had recently seen the divine intervention and providence of God in their deliverance from Egyptian bondage and the giving of the Law from the Holy Mount. Joshua and Caleb believed “our God is able” and seemed anxious to see the power of God demonstrated once ‘again. The congregation believed the report of the ten. So God determined that only Joshua and Caleb, from the number of men ,of military age when Israel left Egypt, should be among those receiving the promise.

If human wisdom was to dictate the actions of Israel, there was no desirable option open to them. This they were to learn soon after making the decision to follow the report of the ten. They could not go back to Egypt, the Red Sea was in the way. Even if they did go back, this would mean a return to bondage. They could not stay in the wilderness for very long because they did not have an adequate supply of food or water. They had elected not to go up and possess the land of promise. So, they were completely dependent upon God to care for them, whichever report they believed and followed. In any case their care would be contrary to human wisdom and reasoning. They were cared for as they wandered aimlessly and hopelessly in the wilderness for forty years until a new generation could be raised up that would have the faith to go up and possess the land.

This was written for our learning; will we learn from it? If we are looking for excuses the devil will provide them. If we are interested in an increased faith, God has already provided the means for increasing it. Have we become so caught up with big things, and so enamored with mass communication, the printing press, radio, television and huge auditoriums that we have forgotten that souls are saved one at a time? While we are devising ways of spanning continents with the gospel on the air waves, our next door neighbor may die and go to hell. While some congregations take pride in how many preachers they help to support, there is absolutely no plan for the future of the work at home. Although we are willing to drop a few dollars in the contribution basket on Sunday morning to assist the work elsewhere, are we willing to miss a ball game, a television program, or a “party” to reach the local lost? The present crises in fuel shortages and unemployment could very well be the things that will increase spirituality, if we will but use the additional time and manpower made available by them to the honor and glory of God. Although we may very well have fewer dollars to give into “the treasury” we may have even greater opportunities to give of ourselves, our time, and cur energies. The Lord has no use for our money anyway, except as it is converted to energy and effort to reach the lost.

Already many manufacturing plants are laying off employees by the thousands. What are members of the Lord’s church doing with this additional time? Are you using some of it in studying with your neighbor, friend or fellow employee? Would you knock on that neighbor’s door and invite him to attend the services with you? Would you begin a Bible study in your home and invite him to attend? Would you set up a study in his home? If you do not feel competent to teach the class, no doubt you know someone who will teach it. Would you enroll him in a correspondence study? Brethren, when possible, let us plan the “special efforts” around those times when some have additional time to spend in advertising and participating in those efforts to strengthen ourselves and reach the lost. I am convinced many among us with ability, interest and zeal, merely need a little direction or encouragement to become involved in these things. There are many Joshua’s and Caleb’s in this land and around the world. Their cry -still is, “Let us go up and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.” Unfortunately, they are still far outnumbered by those who “bring an evil report.” Which will characterize us action or excuses?

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, p. 456
May 29, 1975

By Howard See

In a recent, late-night television interview of a snake handling preacher from East Tennessee, the text of Mark 16:9-20 was attacked as being spurious. This was an effort to try to offset the teaching in Mark 16:18, “‘They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them . . . .” The attack on the genuineness of the passage is reminiscent of sectarian arguments in an effort to offset the teaching on baptism being essential to salvation in verse 16. Even if it could be shown that this portion of Mark’s Gospel is spurious, it would help neither those who want to offset Mark 16:18 nor those who wish to offset Mark 16:16. There are other passages that teach that signs and miracles followed the early Christians to confirm the word, just as there are other passages which teach that baptism is essential to salvation. Neither is it necessary to claim that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious in an effort to offset the practice of handling snakes, drinking poison, etc., as applying to Christians today. There are other passages which teach that the miraculous gifts of the spirit were to cease, fail and vanish away (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8). History also confirms that the miraculous signs did cease. It was interesting to note that when a caller pointed out that these miraculous signs were to cease, fail and vanish away, that the host of the show did not give the preacher an opportunity to make a reply.

In regard to the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20, it needs to be be first pointed out that the authenticity of this passage (i.e. the historical accuracy and correctness of its teaching) has never been questioned by scholars. The only question that has been raised as to its genuineness pertains to whether or not it was written by Mark and whether it should be considered a part of Mark’s original manuscript. Since the accuracy and correctness of the teaching cannot be successfully denied, for the passage to be attached to the close of Mark’s Gospel does not render it any less valuable even though some other Apostle or inspired writer should have been its author.

The basis of the spurious argument.is twofold. First, it is claimed to be spurious because the passage is omitted from the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscripts. These being two of the older known manuscripts (the Sinaitic dating in the fourth century, around 340 A.D.; the Vatican manuscript also dating in the fourth century, probably around 350 A.D., some think as early as 325 A.D.) and since Mark 16:9-20 is omitted, it is argued that the passage was not a part of Mark’s Gospel. Jerome and some fourth century writers are also quoted to say that the passage was absent in some of the Greek copies of their day. Second, it is said that there are words and phrases found in Mark 16:9-20 that are not found in the rest of Mark’s Gospel. From this it is concluded by some that this passage was written by someone other than Mark. A thorough examination of these arguments, however, will not only show that the passage is authentic in all its details, but will also show that there is no real reason to doubt that it was also written by Mark.

The genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 may be seen from the following:

1. The facts stated in Mark 16:9-20 are mentioned in the Gospels (cf. Luke 8:2; John 20:1-8, etc.) and the promise concerning the signs was fully verified by miracles practiced by the Apostles and Christians as listed in the book of Acts. Heb. 2:4 and other passages further confirm that such signs did follow the believers.

2. Mark 16:9-20 is found in nearly all of the other Ancient Manuscripts. These include the Alexandrian (dated around 450 A.D.) which is next to the Vatican in accuracy and importance.

3. Justin Martyr quoted from Mark 16:9-20 about A. D. 160. Among other second century writers quoting this passage are Irenaeus and Tatian. It was also quoted by Hyppolytus and Dyonisius of Alexandria in the third century. All of these lived and wrote from one hundred to two hundred years earlier than the earliest existing manuscript was written or before Jerome indicated that the passage was not found in some of the Greek manuscripts of his day. The words of Irenaeus indicate that the passage was part of the Gospel of Mark in the second century and that Mark was regarded as its author. .He stated, “But Mark, in the end of his Gospel, says; and the Lord Jesus, after that he had spoken to them was received up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.” It is therefore apparent that this passage was a part of the Gospel of Mark and was written by Mark.

4. It is interesting to note that all of the ancient versions of the New Testament contain Mark 16:9-20. This of necessity emphasizes that the passage was a part of the Greek text from which these translations were made. Among these versions are the Peshito Syriac, the Old Italic, the Sahidic and the Coptic. All of these existed long before the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscripts and long before Jerome. It is altogether unreasonable to argue that since it was omitted from these two manuscripts that it is spurious since all of the Ancient Versions, including those that existed long before these two manuscripts, included it as a part of the text of Mark’s Gospel.

5. Further it seems highly improbable that Mark would have so abruptly closed his Gospel at the end of verse 8. The first eight verses of Mark 16 discuss the resurrection of Christ. Verses 9-11 discuss the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. Verses 12-13 discuss the Lord’s appearance to two disciples on the way to Emmaus (cf. Luke 24:1335). Verses 14-18 discuss the appearance of Jesus to the eleven, state the commission which Jesus gave the disciples to preach the gospel state the conditions of salvation, and promise signs for confirming the Word as being the truth of God. Verses 19-20 of Mark 16 speak of the ascension of Christ and affirm that the Lord confirmed their word with signs as he had promised. What more logical way would there have been for Mark to have brought his Gospel to a close.

6. The same two manuscripts that omit Mark 16:9-20 also omit other passages of scripture. Notably among these are John 7:53-8:11. These same verses are omitted in both manuscripts. Yet those who argue that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious because both manuscripts omit these verses, never argue that John 7:53-8:11 is spurious. When it is remembered that the Monks were using the pages of the Sinaitic Manuscript to light the Monastery fires when Dr. Constantin Tischendorf found them in the “Monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai” in 1844, there seems to be a rather rational explanation as to why this and other passages were not found to be a part of the Manuscript.

7. The forty-seven translators of the Authorized Version, or the King James translation put Mark 16:9-20 in the text. Further the one hundred and one translators of the American Standard Version put Mark 16:9-20 in the text. Dr. Phillip Schaff, who served as president of the American Revision Committee said of Mark 16:9-20, “The section is found in most of the Uncial and in all the existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing Manuscripts, quotes verse 19 as a part of the Gospel of Mark. A strong intrinsic argument for the genuineness is also derived from the extreme improbability (we may say impossibility) that the evangelist should have intentionally closed his Gospel with `for they were afraid’ ” (Companion to the Greek New Testament, page 190). Alexander Roberts, also an imminent member of the American Revision Committee said, with emphasis, that the author of Mark 16:9-20 was surely “one who belonged to the circle of apostles,” and that it “is inserted, without the least misgiving, as an appendix to that gospel in the Revised Version” (Companion to the English New Testament, page 63).

We have noted that some attempt to argue that Mark 16:9-20 is spurious and was not written by Mark since there are words and phrases found in these last twelve verses of Mark 16 that are not found in the rest of Mark’s Gospel. It has been observed that there are no less than seventeen words and phrases in this passage that are not used elsewhere by Mark. In response to this argument, J. W. McGarvey observed that Prof. John A. Broadus, a Baptist of Greensville, S.C., published in an article in the Baptist Quarterly for 1869, a list of exactly seventeen words and phrases used by Mark in the twelve verses immediately preceding Mark 16:9-20 that are used nowhere else by Mark. Yet critics of Mark 16:9-20 never question the authorship or genuineness of these twelve verses. McGarvey emphasized that the fact that the same argument could be made against the preceding twelve verses “is at once a surprising fact and a startling exposure of the fragile foundation on which this famous critical structure has been erected. It shows that the same use of the Greek Concordance which led to the origin of this criticism, if pushed a little farther, would have smothered it in its birth, and would have saved some distinguished critics from being detected in a flimsy though pretentious fallacy” (Commentary on Mark, page 380). McGarvey applied the same test to the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Luke and found that there are nine words found in these verses which are used by Luke nowhere else in his gospel. Not only so, but four of these words are found nowhere else in the New Testament. However, none of the critics of Mark 16:9-20 never question the authorship or genuineness of authorship of Luke 24:42-53. Other examples of this kind could probably be found in the New Testament. These are sufficient however, to show that this reasoning on the part of the critics is shallow sophistry. That which is spurious is their argument, not the text of Mark 16:9-20. It is evident, therefore, that the voice of scholarship negates the spurious claim. There is absolutely no reasonable basis to claim that Mark 16:9-20 is anything other than the inspired word of God and that it was written by Mark as a part of his Gospel.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 454-455
May 29, 1975