Today I write about something that has potential to be challenging to understand and something genuine Christians may disagree with–the reason I am not preaching Mark 16:9-20.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16). But the reason I’m not preaching Mark 16:9-20 is because I can’t in good conscience say that it is definitely Scripture.
The topic of textual criticism can get very complicated. So without biting off more than I can chew in this post, let me explain in simple terms how I arrived at my conclusion:
- Manuscripts used to translate the Bible aren’t conclusive about including verses 9-20.
- Every major English translation includes a footnote or some kind of marker making us pause about these verses. (Did you notice it in your footnotes this past Sunday?)
- None of the commentators I used in my study believe these verses should be considered Scripture (fancy word is “canonical”). (Those commentators include R. Alan Cole, William Lane, R.T. France, and Hans F. Bayer.)
Because I am accountable to the Lord Jesus for how I shepherd His sheep, and I’m doubtful about verses 9-20 being Scripture, I won’t be preaching these verses.
More Information
If you want more information on this topic, check out this article by Paul Carter and this one by Elijah Hixson.
Also, if you want to read a good introductory book about textual criticism and how it plays into how we get the Bible today, I recommend Dr. Robert Picirilli’s book How We Get Our English Bible: Understanding About Different Versions.
Lastly, if any of you from Lake Hills or otherwise wants to talk about this topic, I’m available. Just reach out to me or my assistant. Deacon J.D. Schmucker, who has read more on this than I have, told me he is also willing to help anyone from Lake Hills with this if they have questions.
Pastor Jacob’s Blog 