For centuries, Christians have treasured the Gospel of Mark as inspired Scripture, yet many modern Bibles include a curious footnote at Mark 16:9-20. This passage—known as the “longer ending” of Mark—raises important questions about Scripture’s reliability. How should Reformed Christians understand this textual variant, and what implications does it have for our doctrine of Scripture? Well, far from undermining our confidence in God’s Word, a careful examination of this issue actually strengthens our trust in the Bible’s reliability and God’s providential preservation of Scripture.

UNDERSTANDING THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

The debate over Mark’s ending arises because of variations in the ancient manuscripts:

• The Shorter Ending (Mark 16:1-8): The two oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts — Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (both from the 4th century) — end Mark’s Gospel at verse 8, where the women flee from the empty tomb in fear. There is no post-resurrection appearance of Jesus in these manuscripts.
• The Longer Ending (Mark 16:9-20): This passage, which describes Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene, the disciples, and His giving of the Great Commission, appears in many later manuscripts. It was included in the Textus Receptus and subsequently in the King James Version (KJV).
• Other Variants: Some manuscripts also feature a “shorter ending” that adds a brief summary after verse 8, and a few contain what’s known as the “Freer Logion,” an expanded version found in one 5th-century manuscript.

These differences raise an important question: Was the longer ending part of the original Gospel of Mark, or was it a later addition?

DO VARIANTS UNDERMINE BIBLE RELIABILITY?

Given this debate, should we doubt the reliability of Scripture? The answer is a resounding no. Here’s why:

1. God’s Providential Preservation of Scripture:

God has sovereignly preserved His Word through history, despite human limitations in copying and transmission. Variants such as the longer ending do not threaten the message of the Bible; they demonstrate how God has safeguarded His Word across generations.

2. The Role of Textual Criticism:

Textual criticism helps scholars compare manuscripts and determine the most likely original text.

Far from undermining Scripture, this process affirms the vast majority of textual variants are minor and do not affect any of the essential doctrines.

3. The Trustworthiness of God’s Word:

The reliability of Scripture does not depend on any single manuscript or passage but on the unchanging character of God, who inspired and preserved it. The core truths of the Christian faith—Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection—are consistently and abundantly testified throughout the New Testament.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms, the Bible in its original autographs is “given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life” (WCF 1.2). God, in His wisdom, allowed for a process of preservation that includes textual variants. These variants, rather than undermining our faith, demonstrate God’s remarkable preservation of His Word.

When we consider Mark’s longer ending specifically, we see this principle clearly illustrated. The core message of the resurrection and the Great Commission isn’t lost even if this passage is a later addition—these truths are firmly established in other Gospel accounts and throughout the New Testament.

THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The content of Mark’s longer ending deserves careful consideration. When we examine the passage’s theology, we find it aligns with teachings found elsewhere in Scripture. The resurrection appearances parallel accounts in other Gospels, and the commission to preach the gospel echoes Matthew 28:19-20. Even the signs mentioned reflect events recorded in Acts.

The presence of this textual variant actually strengthens our confidence in Scripture in several ways:

1. It demonstrates the honesty and rigour of biblical scholarship, showing our faith isn’t based on hiding difficulties but on facing them openly.
2. It reveals God’s providence in preservation, as the core message remains unchanged despite the presence of textual variations.
3. It confirms the early church’s careful handling of Scripture, as they noted and preserved information about textual differences rather than smoothing them over.

THE MESSAGE OF THE ENDING: FOCUS ON THE RESURRECTION

So, whether Mark’s Gospel ends at verse 8 of Chapter 16 or continues to verse 20, its essential message remains the same: Jesus Christ is risen. The resurrection of Christ is the heart of the Gospel, confirmed by multiple witnesses in the New Testament:

• Matthew, Luke, and John all detail Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances
• Paul writes extensively about the risen Christ in 1 Corinthians 15.

We are not left in the dark about the resurrection, even if Mark’s original ending concluded at verse 8.

CONCLUSION

The longer ending of Mark, far from undermining Scripture’s reliability, actually reinforces our confidence in God’s Word. Through careful scholarship, we see how God has providentially preserved His Word while allowing us to engage honestly with textual variations. It strengthens rather than weakens our faith, showing us a God who works through human means while ensuring His truth endures for all generations.

God’s Word remains reliable, preserved, and sufficient for all we need for salvation and godly living. The Bible stands as a faithful witness to God’s revelation, and the risen Christ remains the cornerstone of our hope.

As believers, we can confidently trust that God’s Word is true and that it will endure forever (Isaiah 40:8). Our faith rests not on manuscript debates but on the living Christ, who conquered death and reigns eternally.

 

THE LONGER ENDING OF MARK—RELATED FAQs

Why would Mark’s Gospel originally end so abruptly at 16:8 with the women fleeing in fear? Some scholars argue the abrupt ending at verse 8 (“for they were afraid”) is actually a brilliant literary device, forcing readers to grapple with their own response to the resurrection. This ending creates a dramatic tension that calls readers to complete the story through their own faithful response to the gospel, much like the original disciples had to do. The Greek word used for fear in this context can also imply reverent awe, suggesting the women’s response was one of holy terror at encountering divine reality.

• Are there significant theological differences between the resurrection accounts in Mark’s longer ending and those in the other Gospels? While the core resurrection narrative aligns with other Gospel accounts, Mark’s longer ending has a unique emphasis on the disciples’ initial unbelief and Jesus’s rebuke of their hardness of heart. The signs mentioned in verses 17-18 are distinctively detailed here and aren’t found in the same form in other resurrection accounts. The ending also presents a more condensed version of events that are described in greater detail in other Gospels, suggesting it might be a later summary of established tradition.
• Do Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions view Mark’s longer ending differently? Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions generally place greater emphasis on church tradition in determining canonical status, often treating the longer ending as definitively part of inspired Scripture. They typically give more weight to the Byzantine manuscript tradition, which consistently includes these verses, and often cite their liturgical usage throughout church history. The Reformed tradition, while respecting church tradition, places primary emphasis on the earliest manuscript evidence and sees the textual variant as part of God’s providential preservation of Scripture.
• If this passage might be a later addition, why do some modern translations still include it in the main text rather than just as a footnote? This editorial decision reflects both pastoral sensitivity and the passage’s long history of use in the church. Most translations seek to balance scholarly accuracy with the recognition that these verses have shaped Christian practice for centuries and remain meaningful to many believers. Additionally, the manuscript evidence, while favouring the shorter ending, isn’t so overwhelming as to make the longer ending’s removal uncontroversial.

How should pastors and teachers handle this passage in preaching and teaching? Pastors should approach this passage with both honesty about the textual issues and pastoral wisdom about their congregation’s needs. Teaching about these verses provides an excellent opportunity to educate believers about how we got our Bible and why textual variants don’t threaten its reliability. We could focus on how God has preserved His Word through history while emphasising no essential doctrine depends on disputed passages.

 

THE LONGER ENDING OF MARK—OUR RELATED POSTS

• Biblical Textual Criticism: Unveiling the Reliability of Scripture
• Why Do We Affirm the Bible’s Reliability? Five Compelling Reasons