1–2. It was very early on Sunday morning, before full daylight (2). Now sabbath was over, with its agonizing forced inactivity; now at last the women could do something, even if it was only embalming the dead, for which they had already bought the spices (1). Nineham is right in stressing their utter unpreparedness for the event that lay ahead; this is a sure proof of the veracity of the narrative. Here was love and deep devotion; but it was only an adoration of a dead Christ, and that was not yet true Christian faith. The women looked for the familiar loved figure of the past, so the first result of the resurrection message was only the fear produced in them by the news of this new divine Christ (8). A past chapter in God’s dealings with them had closed, and they, like us, were such cowards that they would rather cling to the old familiar past than venture out continually into the new and unknown with God; yet this is the present and continual meaning of the walk of faith, as Abraham found. They did not want to lose their earthly Jesus: yet Paul sees this transference of faith from the incarnate Lord to the risen Lord as necessary (2 Cor. 5:16). The disciples had always, even in his earthly life, shrunk from their beloved familiar Lord when he displayed supernatural powers (4:41). This only goes to show that, for all their closeness to him, they had not yet fully understood him (9:32), nor indeed could they until after his resurrection, as the gospels reiterate.
3. The stone which had been placed in position by Joseph (15:46) would have rolled down its sloping groove and slid into place, precisely to guard against any such unauthorized entry by individuals, so the anxiety of the women was well founded. The priests might be afraid of a smuggling away of the body by the disciples (Matt. 27:64), but Joseph would have equally feared common tomb-robbers, at whom so many tomb-imprecations of early centuries are directed. There were numerous cases of tombs being re-used by others for a second ‘pirate’ burial, after the throwing away of the first body or bones. But in confessing their own complete helplessness, they had come the first necessary step; God would act, and indeed, had already acted. To Schweizer, the question of the women depicts the ‘human’ approach: our whole human predicament is summed up in these few words.
4. If they had only known it, the resurrection had already made all their cares and anxieties unnecessary; that which they themselves could never do, God had already done, for the stone (very large) has already been rolled away. Mark does not mention the earthquake and the angelic visitation which had moved the stone according to Matthew 28:2: as usual, he restricts himself to the bare facts necessary for his story. It does not of course necessarily mean that he was ignorant of these points: indeed, his reference to the ‘young man dressed in a white robe’ suggests otherwise (5), since angels have already played their part in Mark’s story (1:13).
6. To dovetail the various resurrection appearances of Christ, or indeed the order of early visits by disciples to the tomb, is not as easy as might appear at first sight, although the gospel accounts are in rough general agreement. Full discussion of this point, however, is more relevant to a commentary on other New Testament books, for the text before us is quite straightforward, as far as it goes, at least in these first eight verses. In subsequent verses, the account seems to be simply an attempted harmonization of material contained in the other gospels. It is obvious that here as elsewhere, much is omitted in Mark’s Gospel, either because it was felt irrelevant to the main ‘run’ of the story, and therefore irrelevant to direct gospel preaching, or else because the author did not have the necessary close contact himself with any primary eyewitness of the resurrection events, although this is hard to believe, if the author was John Mark as already suggested.
Whatever the explanation, it is still a remarkable fact that Mark did not include any direct account of a resurrection appearance of Christ to his disciples.1 This is one of the ‘Marcan omissions’ which puzzled the early church as greatly as they puzzle us, and to which we are no nearer a solution today.
But whatever the reason for this omission, it must be considered in the light of the similar omission of any full account of the restoration of Peter, to which verse 7 contains a passing reference only. In view of the stress laid on Peter’s denial, this is somewhat strange, but is probably to be explained by Mark’s ‘economical’ story-telling style.
If the longer ending of Mark is genuine (see section B below), then several points expressed in the above sentence must be reworded. Among other things, there is here a general reference to the restoration of all the apostolic band in verses 14–18, where Peter would be included. We have seen before (8:33) how Mark sets Peter in a wider context, so that he can stand in ‘theological shorthand’ for the whole body. In Peter’s denial and restoration he is the representative disciple, and so it could be argued that there is no need specially to single him out here: all had fled, all had denied their Lord, all were restored, except only Judas.
5. Mark does not directly identify the young man as an angel, although his supernatural character is clear from the ensuing narrative.2 The realm of spiritual reality which we loosely call ‘angels’ is revealed to humans in the Bible in various forms. At times, they appear as living non-human creatures (Ezek. 1:5–14); at other times, as abstract mathematical forms (Ezek. 1:16). But the usual form of revelation is as celestial beings who have assumed human shape, at least temporarily. Youth and gleaming whiteness of garments probably symbolize heavenly perfection and glory (cf. 9:3, for the transformation in the garments of Jesus at the mountain of transfiguration).3 In spite of this accommodation to human vision and understanding, the women were still alarmed before these beings of pure spirit, as often were others in the New Testament account (Luke 1:12; 1:29; 2:9).
6. So here, too, as in other biblical instances (e.g. Luke 2:9), the first task of the angel is to reassure, by confirming to the women that the purpose of this appearance is mercy, not judgment. Here was not only angelic announcement of the glad news, but also clear visible evidence, in the empty tomb: Jesus of Nazareth (a familiar title), who had been crucified, has risen from the dead. Again, Mark stresses the reality of the hard facts of his death. Even the manifestation of the angel, however, and the sight of the place where Jesus had lain did not convince the women completely, to judge from their subsequent actions. That the ordinary word neaniskos, young man, is used here in Mark, and not the specific angelos, ‘angel’ or ‘heavenly messenger’, probably only implies that, apart from the sense of awe which he inspired, there was nothing compelling about the appearance of the heavenly visitant. It is to the eye of faith that angels appear, for the unbelieving do not see them; and furthermore, it is the eye of faith that interprets angels for what they are. Whenever God acts, it must always be with sufficient ambiguity for us to need the interpretation of faith if we are to see the happening as an act of God. Christian faith is, in the last resort, an understanding by faith of every event as the activity of a God who is at once all love, all holiness and all power. So, without the key of faith, which is the means of interpretation, even the news of the resurrection would be opaque. But faith is not subjective self-deception, for it does not create the fact which it interprets. Only God creates the fact or event, in this case, the event of the resurrection of Jesus. Faith is an appropriation for oneself of the act of God, a grasping hold of that which is real, even if at present unseen (Heb. 11:1).4
7–8. If the women had fully believed the message, we might have expected them to witness boldly and immediately. But, in fairness, the women had merely had a momentary encounter with an angel: so far, they had not met the Lord himself. Those who have themselves met the risen Lord face to face ‘cannot but speak’ of those things that they had heard and seen (Acts 4:20), as we can see from the accounts in the other gospels, summarized in verses 9 to 12 below, in the ‘longer ending’. But even believing testimony by witnesses does not necessarily lead to faith on the part of the hearers.
Further, it is not clear from Mark that it was only unbelief that closed the mouths of these potential witnesses to the resurrection. They were certainly afraid, but also astonishment was theirs (verse 8), and ekstasis may contain a note of joy as well: awe, rather than fear, filled them (Lightfoot). This news was too great and wonderful to grasp at once, and it may be that only the abrupt ending of Mark at verse 8 stops us from hearing of a subsequent report to the eleven apostles, as in the other gospels.5
Whether it was obeyed or not, the commission to bring the news was certainly given to the women, with the specific inclusion of Peter (verse 7) as one recipient of the message. For the Lord’s promised preceding of the disciples to Galilee, see the promise of 14:28, and the comment on that verse. Other gospels mention resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, but certainly do not exclude an appearance in Galilee, to which indeed Matthew specifically refers (Matt. 28:16). We do not need to follow Marxsen here in seeing a reference to the Gentile Christian church of later days in Galilee: as Minear says, the Lord is simply gathering together in Galilee the ‘sheep of the flock’ earlier scattered in Gethsemane.
This section contains the so-called ‘longer ending’ of Mark, omitted in some MSS, and rejected as spurious by most early authorities, such as Eusebius and Jerome. Certainly the style is quite unlike that of the rest of Mark. This poses a problem which may be put briefly as follows. To end the gospel with verse 8 is not only abrupt linguistically, but also abrupt theologically.6 Nevertheless, this so-called ‘longer ending’ is not found in some important manuscripts, and seems to be deliberately excluded. In addition, between verses 8 and 9, several early MSS and versions read ‘But they told Peter and his group briefly all the things that had been commanded them. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to them, and sent out through them from east to west the holy and incorruptible proclamation of everlasting salvation.’ This reads like an early attempt to tidy loose ends; the last clause in particular does not sound Marcan in its expression. One MS actually ends with this summary, omitting verses 9–20 altogether, which is even more suspicious.
As regards the longer ending itself, it may be fairly described as showing knowledge of the subject matter of John 20:1–8 (the story of Mary Magdalene), along with that of Luke 24:13–35 (the story of the Emmaus road), and Matthew 28:18–20 (the great commission). If so, it must be later than these other gospels, and therefore later than Mark.
It is, in fact, a short harmony of resurrection appearances, a skeleton outline which can be easily filled in from the other gospel narratives. But verse 9 itself seems to be introduced without reference to verse 1 above, virtually as a fresh beginning, which is suspicious. Indeed, the whole summary seems to have been drawn up independently of Mark’s Gospel, without reference to any of the preceding verses.
Therefore it seems reasonable to see the longer ending as an attempt, known at least as early as Irenaeus, to ‘round off’ a gospel whose original ending was either felt to be inadequate or had been lost; that several such attempts were made is obvious from the different versions circulating. Further general textual uncertainty is shown by the addition of another long saying added to verse 14 by one authority. Jerome knew of its existence in several MSS of his day, but as it is, from its content, obviously non-canonical, it will not be further mentioned here except as evidence for a general textual dislocation at this point in Mark’s Gospel.
What, then, is the theological value of this longer ending? It may be compared with the story of the woman caught in adultery, in John 8:1–11, as an example of a Christian tradition which may well be genuine and is undoubtedly early, but does not belong to the actual gospel text as it stands. In the case of the Marcan ending, we can go further; the contents are in any case authentic, even if perhaps derived from other evangels, and there is even the strong possibility that this is an ‘official ending’, added by the early church to a sort of ‘second edition’ of Mark. We know so little about the actual circumstances of the primary composition and first written forms of the gospel that it is unwise to be dogmatic. We shall therefore comment briefly upon it, even if it is only a patchwork of pieces from the other gospels. It would be unwise, however, to build a theological position upon these verses alone; and this no responsible Christian group has ever done.
9. This resurrection appearance of Christ is clearly not the appearance of the angel in the garden to Mary, along with the other Mary, as mentioned in verse 5 above (John 20:1). It perhaps refers to John 20:16, Mary’s second visit to the tomb, when she met the Lord himself. Luke, who is presumably the other source here, also mentions in connection with Mary of Magdala the ‘seven demons’ (Luke 8:2),7 a number which is probably figurative for total possession by the powers of evil. Some have suggested that this Mary was the anonymous woman who anointed the Lord’s feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:38), since she is described there as being a ‘sinner’. In any case, the thought is clearly that Mary, to whom much had been forgiven, ‘loved much’ (Luke 7:47).
10–11. Even if the other women said nothing to anyone because of their fear (8), Mary Magdalene here spreads the good news. But, even when she did, the disciples refused to believe (11), in spite of their sorrow (10). There is nothing more tragic than the refusal of the disciples to receive such witness, even when it was the answer to their problems. The unbelief of the disciples has been a constant theme of Mark’s Gospel: they are still the same, even after the resurrection of Jesus, showing that the picture given is true.
12–13. So it was not surprising that two of these same disciples failed at first to see, in the stranger of the Emmaus road, the risen Christ (Luke 24:16). That seems to be the story indicated by in another form here: usually Jesus was recognized by his disciples at once, during his resurrection appearance to them. Again, it was poetic justice that those who had initially disbelieved the women’s witness should now find themselves disbelieved by the other disciples, when they returned to Jerusalem, to tell how they had met the Lord.
14. This must refer to the appearance of Christ to the whole body of the disciples, chronicled in John 20:19ff. It almost seems as if the disciples, in the stubbornness of their sorrow, had actually preferred unbelief and despondency to God’s joyous truth of resurrection. Unbelief and hardness of heart had long been the besetting sins of the disciples (9:19), and nowhere were these more apparent than in this refusal to believe in the resurrection. There is a consistency in the portrayal of the disciples throughout which is very remarkable. Yet, by God’s law, these two very sins would be the greatest obstacles to the apostolic preaching of the gospel to others. To understand the blindness and perversity of those outside Christ, they need only look at their own hearts to understand and be humbled.
15–16. This is a form of the ‘great commission’ which, according to Matthew 28:16–20, was delivered on a mountain in Galilee, where so much of Christ’s earlier teaching had been given.8 This appearance fulfilled his expressed intention to precede his disciples to Galilee (7). Until the disciples had met the risen Lord for themselves, and were truly convinced of his resurrection, they had no gospel to preach, and so it was fitting that only now should they receive the great commission. Indeed, so far from generalizing the evangelistic mission, during the days of the earthly ministry of Jesus, the scope of his healing and teaching work, though widespread, had been deliberately restricted by him to Israel, and work among the Gentiles was not sought by him (7:27). In Mark’s ‘Gentile’ Gospel, while he does not record any prohibition by the Lord of preaching by his disciples to Gentiles (Matt. 10:5), as is natural, yet equally he nowhere records any command to them to preach ‘to the nations’, during his earthly ministry. In view of Mark’s strongly Gentile interest, this is a remarkable fact, confirming the truth of the picture given in the other gospels. If this is so, a very remarkable extension of the scope of evangelism has taken place after the cross and resurrection of Christ, although the full effects will not be seen until after Pentecost.
Schweizer sees a peculiar appropriateness in the fact that the missionary commission follows immediately upon the denunciation of unbelief. Faith will lead to proclamation: unbelief will seal the lips of the disciples.
16. As always in God’s dealings with humanity, it is faith that justifies and unbelief that condemns, and Christian faith is henceforth to be symbolized and sealed in baptism. We have no mention of Christian baptism elsewhere in Mark, though John 4:1–2 seems to mention it during the ministry of Jesus. Nor does the longer ending, in this commandment, specify either the manner of baptism or the formula to be used. This may be either because these things were not held to be of importance, or because both were so familiar at the time of writing that no need was felt to detail them here.
17–18. Here again is a great rule of the spiritual life; signs are to be given to those who believe, not primarily in order that they may believe. This was the ceaseless battle between the Pharisees and Jesus, with the Pharisees reiterating their demands for a sign, and Jesus equally adamant that no sign would be given to unbelief (8:11–12). Incidentally, the word used for ‘sign’ here is not used by Mark of Jesus’ miracles, although it is so used by John (Anderson): this may also show a later date, and certainly suggests non-Marcan authorship for the longer ending.
This promise is a word for the church; it is for those within, not for those outside. Every one of these evidential ‘signs’, except possibly the drinking of lethal draughts, is recorded in the history of the early church in Acts. The speaking of new tongues, for instance, is frequently found from Pentecost onwards (Acts 2:4). For the rest, in Acts 16:18 Paul expels a demon; in Acts 28:5 he shakes off a snake into the fire; in Acts 28:8 he lays his hand on the sick and heals them. Whether or not such spectacular manifestations were intended to be continuous in the life of the church, or to be restricted to this period, or sporadic throughout church history, must be decided in the light of the rest of the New Testament. In view of the uncertain textual evidence for this longer conclusion, and therefore its doubtful canonical status, no dogmatic assumptions should be made from this particular passage alone.9 If, as suggested, these verses are a sub-apostolic attempt to restore a lost ending to Mark, then we must assume that there was some known extrabiblical case of Christians drinking lethal draughts without harm; otherwise, there would have been no point in including the phenomenon here amid a list of other well attested miracles.10
19. This verse clearly describes the ascension (Luke 24:50–51), in phraseology borrowed from the Old Testament, although it is difficult to speak of any specific quotation. The verse seems a combination of 2 Kings 2:11 (the ascent of Elijah), with the messianic Psalm 110:1. So the early Christian interpretation of the Lord’s ascension is clear; it is a triumphal ascent, to be followed by an ‘enthronement’, awaiting God’s ultimate vindication of his Christ. Psalm 110 is the great messianic Psalm, where Melchizedek’s priesthood is promised to the Lord; it is also the very Psalm quoted to the scribes by Jesus when he asked them his ‘hard question’ about the identity of David’s Son, who was also David’s Lord (12:37).
20. This is the peaceful closing verse, like Luke 24:53; but Luke leaves the disciples at worship in the temple, while the longer ending of Mark shows the church expanding on all fronts. The reason for this may be that Luke’s Gospel is only the first volume of his church history; there is a sequel to come in the book of Acts. Not so here; the whole of Acts is covered for the author in this single verse; and it may be more than an accident that the style of this last verse is much closer to that of Acts. There can be no going back to the old; the church must move forwards, with her Lord. In this, the anonymous author speaks truly, and, even if he is not Mark, he is a worthy successor to the writer of the earliest gospel, for he shares fully Mark’s goals and interests. Lastly, as in the gospel itself, the signs do not constitute the message: they but confirmed it. So we may add our Amen.