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

Conclusion

There is both abundant Scriptural and logical evidence for the case against Mark 16:14-18 being a parable. 

The only reason the RCI need to change the accepted (and scripturally sound) meaning of this portion of the Bible, is because it does not fit their doctrine. More importantly it does not fit their experience. In the Acts of the Apostles, only some, not all, prayed for people and saw them miraculously healed. Only one, not all, was bitten by a snake and not harmed. Only some, not all cast out devils. And finally, it would follow, only some, not all, spoke in tongues, as the Bible states (see article on 1 Cor 12:29-30).

It is of course this final, logically unavoidable conclusion, that is the sticking point for Revivalists. A simple straight forward reading and understanding of Mark 16:14-20 is very damaging to the Revival doctrine.

Hence the 'need' for a parable. 

I would also say that another reason the RCI accept the parabolising of this portion of Scripture, is due in part to Pastor Lloyd's unscriptural, up front rejection of anything to do with devils. It is ironic, but in these two simple verses of Scripture, stand two of the fundamental tenets of the RCI doctrine in complete irreconcilable opposition to each other......

Tongues, yes all must do, but devils, no, none must do.

This would qualify as a classic doctrinal oxymoron, unless of course we accept the parable theory.

From the perspective of the authors of this site, Mark 16:14-20 is not a parable.

[ <<Back ] [ Mark 16 Contents]

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