To anyone who reads it, the end of Mark seems like an enigma. While there are longer endings, the oldest and most reliable manuscripts come to a stop at verse 8.
And [the women] went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 15:8)
There are two options:
- The verses following were simply lost.
- The shorter ending is deliberate.
Whatever the intention, the effect is quite profound: there is an unfinished nature to the book of Mark. The ending draws the reader in, and helps you identify with the women walking away from the tomb. The question throbs in your brain: how do I react to the resurrection of Jesus?
I’ve even heard suggestions that here is an implicit call to witness for Christ: the women were afraid and said nothing; what will we do? Will we, like them, be afraid and keep the message to ourselves? However, I think there’s much more going on here than a call to courageous gospel proclamation.
Something that strikes me about the ending of Mark is that it is remarkably similar to the ending of Daniel chapter 7. In his vision, Daniel sees one like a Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days, and receiving dominion, glory and an eternal kingdom (Dan 7:14). Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man again and again. The Son of Man had authority (Mark 2:10; 2:28), would suffer (Mark 8:31; 9:12; 9:31; 10:33; 10:45; 14:21; 41), would rise (Mark 9:9) and would come in great power (Mark 13:26; 14:62). When Daniel is finished with his vision, he is exhausted, perplexed and silent. He had seen amazing things:
Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart. (Dan 7:28)
Put this side by side with the reaction of the women to Jesus, and see the similarity:
And [the women] went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)
Even if there is no allusion to Daniel in the final verse of Mark’s gospel, Daniel’s response is still instructive. When you see something wonderful—something even profoundly good, for example, God’s kingdom breaking into earth—you can be so overwhelmed that you cannot speak. We should not stand in judgement over these women as uncourageous failed missionaries, but instead stand with them in awe and wonder, pondering the empty tomb and the risen Christ.
But if there is an allusion here, then perhaps Mark is subtly suggesting that at the resurrection, the Son of Man now has come with power, has approached the Ancient of Days and has been given power, authority and dominion. Everyone will see this at the end of all time, and yet his disciples had the opportunity to see it even then. They had a glimpse of the future, and they were so moved, they said nothing. Apocalypse and history meet at the resurrection of Christ. The question hits the reader: how do you go about your ordinary life when something that huge has happened?
I think this ending might be an apologetic as to why the intended readers of Marks gospel hadn’t heard of Jesus. The “messianic secret” throughout Mark is consistant with this view.
An interesting idea Andrew. So do you think the intended reader is meant to associate with the people the women failed to tell rather than the women themselves?
Thanks Andrew. I wonder if Jesus silent testimony in Mark 14:61-62 (cf. Isa 53:7) is meant to prepare us for this apocalyptic collision?
It reminds me also of when Moses says the silent stance of awe is the appropriate reponse to seeing the salvation of the Lord, just before they cross the red sea. Exodus 14:13-14:
Andrew, I think Mark is unflattering towards the main Jewish figures around Jesus: the disiples (portrayed as dim witted through out), the family of Jesus and people from his home town (6v4), and in the end towards the lack of courage shown by these women. It’s the gentile characters such as the centurion at the crucifixion (15v39) and the woman who annoints Jesus (14v9) that seem to the role models for believers.
So I think the odd ending is part apologetic as to why Jesus was not known of generally in the community of the intended (gentile) readers, and part of a general polemic against Jewish figures as yet another example of what not to do as a follower of Jesus.
So yes, the readers were not meant to identify with the women, but with the people the women didn’t tell (but should have).
Enjoyed your article by the way. Thanks.
Hi Matt. Thanks for pushing this thought even further.
1. Silent watching is the response to God coming onto the stage of history in all his glory -like the Exodus as you show. I have never noticed this before. Yet here their silence is not a command but a shock-and-awe-filled response.
2. You draw my attention to that amazing verse in Mark’s gospel which pushes for the Son of Man interpretation.
You’ve made me think. The religious leaders acted like the little horn in Daniel 7 who spoke blasphemous words and attacked him; whereas the women responded like Daniel and were overwhelmed by seeing the judgment of the world and the Son of Man’s arrival.
Hi Andrew. You’ve made me think hard about Mark’s gospel. I think you are right in his negative portrayal of the disciples and family of Jesus, but I think I’ll have to part company on his portrayal of these women.
I have two reasons:
1. The thrust of what I am saying is that a comparison with Daniel 7 shows that their response has at least one godly precedent. Fear and silence.
2. The women are presented as ones who stood by Jesus. They looked after him at the crucifixion and burial and to change and paraphrase from elsewhere ‘whenever the gospel is preached, what they did will be told in memory of them.’ (14:9)
See how the women are mentioned alongside the centurion.
Is it stating the obvious too much to point out that chapter 7 is only half-way through the book of Daniel?
(Unless you really want to make a big deal of the Aramaic section ending there.)
Surely the point is that Daniel’s reaction in verse 28 is <i><b>not</i></b> the end of the book?
I’m not sure that I follow John. I have made nothing of Daniel 7 being at the end of the book. Maybe I haven’t been clear.
Verse 28 is at the end of a vision of beasts, the judgment of God and coming of the Son of Man. I’m suggesting that Daniel’s reaction at the end of his vision bears some similarity to the reaction of the women when they find out the news of the Son of Man.
Sorry Andrew, maybe this is a tangent.
The comparison with Daniel 7 is a good one and worth thinking over.
I just don’t think it tells us anything about whether Mark should end at verse 8 or not.
I think I agree with you John to an extent.
It is looking at the evidence of the manuscripts that drives you to thinking that Mark ends with verse 8. This theory just gives a little bit of internal evidence that perhaps might show that this ending makes sense.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Hi Andrew et al.
Great food for thought: thanks to all (so far) for posting their reflections.
The fear that’s clearly stated at the end of Mk 16 seems to me to be a continuation of the idea that fear of God (and his terrifyingly impressive works) should lead to faith in him.
It’s as if Mark has deliberately, throughout the gospel, recorded a pattern of (1) God’s action (B) response of fear and (iii) response that faith, not fear, is the appropriate response.
It’s like someone running a scripture assembly at a primary school: every time I say “fear”, you scream out, “NO!!, Faith, not Fear!.”
If we see the episodes of fear in mark (4.40 after the storm, 6:49-50 as Jesus walks on water, 9:14-26 at the healing of the boy with the evil spirit, 14:1-10 as the fear of the authorities is contrasted with the faith of the perfume-pourer, and the resurrection itself) as opportunities to hear this refrain (faith, not fear), then when we hear the fear of the women at the tomb, we all say together, “not fear, but Faith!?
Reading mark again makes me wish that there were more of these instances … Maybe I’m making it up.
Hi Roger. These are very interesting thoughts. I wonder if it is important to ask what they are frightened of in each situation.
The thought categories of most of the Scriptures seem to be:
1. don’t be afraid of other things
2. be afraid of God.
In each of those examples they are told not to be afraid of other things.
i. not to be afraid of the storm – but trust in Jesus. (4:40) They end up being afraid of Jesus rather than the storm (4:41)
ii. not to be afraid of a ghost (6:49). They ended up being amazed at Jesus.
(in the other examples didn’t have the clear ideas of “faith” and “fear”)
There is another example in Mark which lines up right faith with fear and does not see them as opposites.
Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.” (Mark 5:33-34)
I think the only fear that is condemned in Mark is fear of dangers. Fear, awe and wonder seem totally appropriate reactions as long as the fear, awe and wonder is aimed at God.
I don’t think that the women’s reaction at the tomb is a lack of faith – but the normal reaction to seeing the power of God revealed.
I suppose that’s why I am suggesting that the Daniel case study has some relevance – surely Daniel was not suffering from a lack of faith when he was overwhelmed.
Hi Roger … I think I’m basically agreeing with your first paragraph.
… although I’m not quite sure of the order. I think right fear of God can lead to faith and can also accompany it