Skip to content

The Signs That Follow

The text. "And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 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 16:15-18, ESV)

The setting: the textual question first

Mark 16:9-20 — the "long ending" — is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both of the fourth century, and from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac, most Armenian manuscripts, and the oldest Georgian manuscripts. It appears in the great majority of later Greek manuscripts and in the Latin tradition. Eusebius and Jerome both knew of copies that lacked it. Most New Testament scholars judge it a second-century addition, and the earliest recoverable form of Mark ends at 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb and saying nothing, "for they were afraid."

A continuationist case must not rest on this passage, and this one does not.

The manuscript evidence in brief

Codex Alexandrinus (fifth century) includes the long ending; Codex Washingtonianus (fifth century) adds a further paragraph, the so-called Freer Logion, between verses 14 and 15. The ending stands in the Vulgate and therefore in the received text, which is why it is familiar. Familiarity is not authenticity.

The cessationist reading

Two moves are made. The first is textual: the passage is not Mark's, so it proves nothing and should be dropped from the argument. The second is theological: even if genuine, the signs were the credentials of the apostles and of the founding generation. "Those who believe" means the first believers who saw the risen Lord, and the signs confirmed the gospel at its launch. Both moves are worth taking seriously; the first is, in the main, correct.

The problems

1. The doubt cuts both ways

A passage whose textual status is disputed cannot carry a doctrine — in either direction. It contains no terminus, no "until," no "when the canon is complete." The cessationist who says, "Mark 16 is a later addition," has not proved cessation; he has removed a witness. If the ending is not Scripture, it cannot be quoted to prove that signs ceased, any more than it can be quoted to prove that they continue.

2. As a second-century text it is still a witness

Suppose it was written around the middle of the second century. It still tells us what a church of that era believed and practised: that the risen Lord promised signs to believers, and that the church expected demons cast out, new tongues, healing, and protection in mission. That is historical evidence rather than doctrine, but it is evidence — and it is evidence that the church which produced the ending did not believe the gifts had ceased.

3. The signs belong to "those who believe"

hoi pisteusantes, "those who have believed" — an aorist participle with no limit in the sentence. The commission is universal, "to the whole creation," and the promise rides on the commission. Matthew's version makes the horizon explicit: "to the end of the age" (28:20). Mark's Gospel is hard on the Twelve throughout; it is not a book that would hand the church's power to a caste.

4. The list matches Acts and the epistles

Demons: Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:18; 19:12. Tongues: Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12-14. Healing: Acts 3:6-8; 5:15-16; 9:34; 28:8; James 5:14-15. Snakes and poison: Acts 28:3-6, where Paul is bitten and unharmed. The correspondence is not a forger's invention; it is the church's actual life, and it matches documents no one disputes.

5. The signs corroborate the message, not an office

Verse 20: "the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs." The object of confirmation is the message, and the message is still preached. That is the logic of Hebrews 2:3-4 as well. A cessationist may reply that the message was confirmed once for all in the apostolic preaching; that is an argument, but it is an argument from the nature of apostolic authority, not from this verse.

The continuationist reading

The strongest use of the passage is corroborative, not load-bearing. It shows three things: that the church which preserved this ending expected the signs; that the signs are attached to faith and mission rather than to an office; and that the list matches what Acts reports. If the ending is genuine, it is a dominical promise. If it is secondary, it is early evidence of the church's expectation. Either way it does not help the cessationist, who must explain why a church that wrote this had stopped expecting what it wrote.

The snake and poison clauses are a promise of protection in mission, not an invitation to test God (Matthew 4:7). The Appalachian practice of handling serpents is a misreading, however sincere, and it should not be defended by anyone who wants this passage read well.

What this does and does not prove

It proves: that the long ending's textual status is doubtful and should be conceded; that even so the passage contains no terminus; that it attaches the signs to "those who believe" and to a mission that runs to the end of the age; and that its list matches the practice of Acts.

It does not prove: that Mark wrote the ending; that snake-handling or poison-drinking are legitimate practices; or that the gifts continue today. It proves that this text cannot be enlisted against them, and that the church which preserved it did not read it as a notice of cessation.

Further reading

  • Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed., United Bible Societies, 1994), on 16:9-20.
  • R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC, 2002).
  • Robert H. Stein, Mark (BECNT, 2008).
  • D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Baker, 1987), on the signs and the commission.

See also