Q&A: Mark 15-16

Mark 15-16 Q and A

Here are some brief answers to our questions from our Sunday evening service.

1. Comment on the earliest manuscripts not having Mk16:9-20

This section is a very different style to the rest of Mark's gospel. But it was included int he Canon (the bible as we know it) as factual and deserving of being included in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Although it is generally accepted that t was not written by Mark himself, hence the note that this is not part of the early manuscripts.

2. Why did Jesus appear in a different form when he seemed to want to be recognised?

Jesus' resurrected body is unusual! Marks on his hands and feet. He ate fish. They put their hand in his side, yet he also passed through walls. We do not know how the resurrected body "works" as such! But Jesus certainly was a teacher and he used different appearances to teach people about his death and resurrection and what it meant.

3. I believe, but can't do any of the v17-18 signs. What's up?

The signs that Jesus enabled his disciples to do were what I (and others) would call a "special dispensation" - a special gift of the Holy Spirit for that time. it was a special gifting for the launch of the church of Jesus. This continues into Acts when we see the gifts of tongues that everyone could understand. We don't see these particular gifts today, although I have heard many people claim to have such gifts. We do see the gift of tongues, but not in the same way. We do see the gift of healing, but not in the same way. The early church had this "special dispensation" that launched the church. Although these are not seen the same way today, God does gift his church with very special gifts but I believe that the gifts spoken about here are particularly for that time, and for the disciples/apostles of that day.

4. Mark 9 -20 who added it to Mark

Possibly some school of theology of the day who thought that Mark's gospel ended a little too abruptly! It is certainly a very different style to the rest of the gospel. in short, we don't know for sure, but scholarship tells us it was added later and uses a very different writing style and vocabulary to Mark himself.

5. Lk18:33, Jesus says he will be captured and killed, & on the 3rd day he will rise. But he’s dead on Fri & rises Sun - only 2 days; what am I misunderstanding?

This is just a language/translation thing: the proper reading is actually that he rose "on the third day", not "after three days". The way for measuring time here is to count Friday as day 1, Saturday as day 2 and Sunday as day 3 - the third day. Hence he died on the first day, rose on the third day.

6. Do you think Mark's original abrupt ending is typical of his style - concise and provocative to make you want to know more?

Yes.

Mark's abrupt ending really makes us think: "What's next?!" This is very much his style to get us thinking.

7. In V2, what was the purpose for the women to go to the tomb? And, why did the disciples not go with them?

The women went to anoint the body with oils and spices - to honour the body and to "dress" it for burial after the very quick burial on Friday What it does leave us with is the very fact that the women became the key witnesses of the most important event in human history!

The disciples did not go because the preparation of the body was the work of the women in that culture. The disciples, therefore, had no reason to go. They were also, I imagine, afraid. They had already abandoned Jesus and since they did not understand that he was to rise, they had no reason to visit the tomb.

8. Was it usual that Pilate did not preside over/stay abreast of updates of the crucifixion of such a high profile “criminal” that even demanded trade of Barrabas

It probably was not common for Pilate to preside over the whole crucifixion. It was a big area he looked after, and crucifixion was a regular occurrence. However, he did take interest when Joseph reported to him, due to the speed with which Jesus died. Usually, someone would take days to die on a cross. So Jesus' death on the same day was unusual. He probably perhaps may have asked for an update on the Monday or Tuesday, and wouldn't have expected any news before then.

9. Do you think there would have been any fallout for Joseph of Arimathea for his burial of Jesus from the Sanhedrin?

Quite possibly. Having been a part of the Jewish leadership, he almost certainly would have been questioned over his involvement in the whole burial. But we don't know much - Joseph appears and disappears without much information.

10. Whose tomb was Jesus buried in? Previously, my understanding alluded to the other Joseph (husband of Mary) but would it have been Joseph of Arimathea?

yes, Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Matthew 27:59-60 tells us this more clearly:

11. In Mark 8, 9, 10, 16:10 and 16:12, it appears that the disciples did not understand Jesus’ death and resurrection. Two questions are below:

a. Later, they risked their lives for the gospel movement. How could they change so enormously?

I would say most certainly that this was the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. After Jesus' resurrection, God sent his Holy Spirit which lives in believers today. This is the promise of God - to all who believe. God himself is at work in us through his Spirit. This is transformational!

b. Any lesson can we take from them in our journey of faith?

yes. We are, like them, ordinary people with an extraordinary God. We sin, we make mistakes, and we fail, over and over again. But God is faithful and continues to use us for his purposes. We must remember that the work we do for God is done in the strength of God. Like the disciples, we need God to be at work in us. WIth Hm all things are possible. In short - God uses ordinary people for his work! hat a privilege that is.