Mark 16:14-20 - Is it a parable?
An examination of the Revivalist understanding
By Drew Dixon

Part 1- What of the literal fulfilments?

In support of their argument that Mark 16 is a parable, the RCI 1999 VOR Article begins by quoting the following verses from Matthew:-

Matthew 13:34-35

34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: 35That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Now I may be stating the obvious, but, the literal meaning of a parable was not generally meant to be fulfilled then highlighted. 

What do I mean by that?

There is no specific record of either Jesus or his disciples going out and sowing tares, growing mustard trees, sweeping for coins, or digging up pearls etc. I am sure we would all understand that the literal fulfilment of a parables was not the ultimate intent of the teaching (in reality it was not even considered in the context). If Scripture had highlighted these literal fulfilments, it would have reduced the impact of the teaching and introduced considerable confusion as to the intent of Jesus' words (the current situation being a good point in case).

The above point highlighted

The RCI begin the parable application at verse 17, but Jesus begins to talk to them in verse 15. Verse 15 & 16 should also  be reconciled to the parable interpretation as well. For some reason this is often over looked:-

........And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature

In this I can see no easily understood contemporary event, hiding a deeper spiritual principle, it seems straight forward and was something the disciples literally went and did after Pentecost. They also did a bit of preaching prior to Pentecost as well. No hidden meanings here and we continue to see it in this day and age.

........He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

In this too there is no contemporary event hiding a deeper principle. It is straight forward and was something the disciples literally went and did after Pentecost. We continue to see this today.

........In my name shall they cast out devils

Both before and after Pentecost, Jesus and the disciples literally cast out devils (Acts 5:16, Acts 8:7 and the myriad of Gospel examples). They did exactly what Jesus said would happen. As explained previously, a parable is not generally something that was to attain a literal fulfilment.

The actual casting out of devils was also a significant sign, even in the establishing and spreading of the Gospel. In this it fulfilled one of its purposes as described in Mark 16:17. Though Revivalists shut their eyes to the wider reality of the Body of Christ, we still see these events in our current day and age.

.....they shall speak with new tongues

As for 'Prayer in the Spirit', the Revival fellowships have misunderstood 1 Corinthians 14:14 in relation to this (see article on Praying in the Spirit). Also, the fact remains, that on and after Pentecost, they spoke in tongues and it was still referred to in 95% of all references as 'speaking in tongues'. All through the book of Acts, from its inception, Luke sees no need to describe it in any other way (and he does not). He never calls it prayer with the spirit. 2000 years later we still use the exact same terminology. 

Also, it was the literal 'speaking in tongues' (understood gentile languages), that was a definitive sign to the Jews at Pentecost (again fulfilling the sign function, see the article on Acts 2 - Pentecost) It was not the 'praying with the spirit' in 'unknown tongues' that fulfilled the sign that Mark speaks of. The speaking in unknown tongues at Corinth (where Paul talks of tongues as 'his' spirit praying), does not seem to have been a very positive sign. Indeed these unknown tongues, on their own, had the ability to turn away unbelievers (see 1 Cor 14). In Mark 16, Jesus speaks of positive, not negative signs.

......They shall take up serpents

Once again, this is not an easy to understand, contemporary event of the time. People did not go round taking up serpents, without being hurt (as is the point of Jesus discourse). As it happened, Paul was literally bitten by a viper, which again, proved a significant sign to all those that witnessed the event. So much so, they thought he was a god (Acts 28:3). Eventually many were healed on Melita.

........and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them

No record is given of someone drinking any deadly thing in the NT, so I cannot comment from that angle. It should be remembered though, that in the Apostles time, they were not blessed with healthy, non-contaminated water on tap, contaminated water was a real issue. In the Greek of this passage, the Scripture is given in the subjunctive mood, hence the word "if" is used, a 'perhaps' situation if you will. Again, it is helpful to remember the general intent and direction of a parable i.e. usually a contemporary event understood by the local people. To say that the people of Jesus' day drank deadly things and were not harmed (as would be required if the parable were to be valid) is unlikely. 

It is of note that I have heard Revival testimonies of people accidentally drinking  toxic substances without getting sick (children especially). I see no need to dispute this and it confirms Mark 16. I am sure many Christians could testify of the same miracle. Again there is no need to spiritualise this verse and it is still quite relevant and finds fulfilment in our day and age.

Further, the RCI article says that to drink any deadly thing is to embrace or preach false doctrine (without harm I assume). This seems a bit odd. Consider that Paul's letter to the Galatians was essentially about false doctrine. (see also Eph 1:14, Rom 16:17, Titus 1:9-11). Paul saw this false doctrine as a very real and present danger to his Spirit-filled brothers and sisters. He spent a great deal of time writing and explaining to them the right doctrine.

.......they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover

I found the Revivalist parabolising in this instance a little confusing. Essentially, they did not do so. The VOR seems to confirm that those things which Jesus spoke of in the 'parable' did indeed take place literally afterward in the Church in like manner, for they quote the scripture in James referring to the anointing with oil and prayer for healing. I cannot easily see the significant spiritual difference in the Mark 16 'parable' and the Scripture quoted in James?

That aside, the healing of Mark 16 was no contemporary event hiding a deeper spiritual principle. Healing is a straight forward supernatural event and was something the disciples went and did both before and after Pentecost (through God, not natural abilities). In the Acts of the Apostles they literally laid hands on the sick, who were then healed (Acts 28:8). Again it also fulfilled it's sign value as spoken of in Mark.

The Church continues to see this healing sign in this day and age.

Part 1 summary

The above shows Jesus was not putting forth plausible, contemporary, understood events or principles to convey deeper spiritual meanings. Every sign spoken of in Mark 16, with the exception of the 'perhaps' clause of drinking of deadly things, was reported and saw a literal fulfilment in the Acts of the Apostles. All these signs were supernatural and provided a very powerful witness to those involved, just as Jesus designated. All these signs, while not on call, continue to see fulfilment in this day and age.

[ << Back - Part 1 ] [ Mark 16 Contents] [ Part 2 - Next >> ]

[Main Menu]    [Article List ]   [Topic List]    [British Israel]    [Acts]