Wishful thinking theology

April 21, 2021 (Wednesday)

 

The Gospel of Mark is troubling in some senses. First it does not include the “Virgin Birth” of Jesus. Second, the “best” manuscripts do not include an appearance of Jesus after the resurrection.

 

Most modern translations have a note that Mark 16:9 – 20 is not in the “best” manuscripts. It actually is more complicated than that… There are some manuscripts that include a verse between what we call verse 8 and verse 9. One includes material after verse 14.

 

I’ve always wondered about the ending of Mark. Some strange theology has developed from it. For instance: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” [Mark 16:17 – 18 ESV]

 

Ever hear about people who pick up serpents and drink poison as part of their practice?  Even the idea of casting out demons and speaking in new tongues will meet resistance. People will deny healing of the sick. But questioning scripture is not new. Martian Luther excluded Hebrews and James, because they disagreed with his theology.

 

So what do we do when we have something seem questionable or difficult to understand? Rule number one: don’t panic. Rule number two: be careful. There is an old rule in hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) that “scripture interprets scripture. Another rule is to not major on something that occurs in passing. It becomes a bit dicey when something is found once. Pay attention, but be careful about building theology based on a single passage.

 

If we look at those verses, our perspective might come what we WANT to believe. If we have witnessed or want to witness “signs” then these verses will hold more weight. If we haven’t or don’t want to see these things, then we might write them off. Here’s the deal: be careful. What we want can be different from the reality.

 

At this point we need to depend on the Holy Spirit. Which brings about another questionable twist to hermeneutics. The first one to suggest the Holy Spirit is necessary in understanding the Bible was Augustine. Eventually this was picked up again during the Reformation (to counter Catholic theology), especially by John Calvin. This gave personal interpretation weight over long held views.

 

The reason I call this questionable is because many people have thought they were guided by the Holy Spirit, when in fact they were not. The imagined guidance of the Holy Spirit gave weight to whatever bad idea or theology they were pushing at the moment. Again the problem is we think these leadings of the Holy Spirit are infallible.

 

Here’s the point: step wisely. I’m sure whoever might (or might not) have added to the Gospel of Mark thought they were filling in the gaps. They recapped the story of Marry Magdalene, the two on the road to Emmaus, and the “Great Commission.” Nothing inherently “wrong” with that… unless we become dogmatic about our preferences and dramatic about things that are not essential.