I was able to attend session 3 of a home church conference put on by NTRF. Here are some not I took from session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus.

The Practice of the Early Church

Session 3 – Elder-Led Congregational Consensus

(Steve Atkerson)

Everyone agrees that Christ is the head of the Church… opinions digress from that point.

Elder-Led Congregational Consensus is a little different than Elder-Rule form of church government.

Who is in charge here? Luke 22:23-27

We are not to be like the Gentiles.

How much authority should church leaders have? The same authority a child has, the same authority a servant has.

Leaders have authority, but it is a different type of authority (one that is unlike the Gentiles).

Who were the letters to churches written to?

Romans 1:7 – To all, not just the leaders

1 Corinthians 1:2 – To all, not just the leaders

2 Corinthians 1:1 – To all, not just the leaders

Galatians 1:1 – To all…

etc., etc., etc.

Philippians 1:1 – To all… “including the overseers and deacons”

etc., etc., etc.

Hebrews 13:7 – To all… and then asks them to “greet all of your leaders and all the saints.”

etc., etc., etc.

1 Peter 5:1-3 – Written to the elders “among you.”

Elders are important, but there is a decided lack of emphasis on Elders. We should appreciate them for their service (1 Thessalonians 5:12).

It appears that the authority that Elders have is the authority to persuade people to the truth.

Authority resides with the church corporately, not with its leaders.

Matthew 16:18-19

Matthew 18:16-17

Church leaders don’t make decisions for the church, the make decisions with the church. Perhaps like the Senate, a group of people can bring what they think should be done (leaders) and but they with the rest of the church decide together.

Doing it this way, means you will have to love each other enough to put up with one-another. You won’t always agree with one-another.

Acts 1:15,23 – Peter recognized a problem, need to fill Judas’ spot, but the 120 put forward two possible people.

Acts 6:3,5 – Recognized a problem of with feeding the widows, but the church picked the seven.

Acts 15 (22-23) – With the whole church…

1 Corinthians 5 – The whole church decides

1 Corinthians 6 – The whole church judges

Consensus is based on unity – Psalm 133:1; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3-6; Phillipians 2:2; Colossians 3:15; John 17:11,20-23; 1 Corinthians 10:17; Ephesians 4:11-13;

Hebrews 13:17 – Obey is 13:17 in the Greek is actually more like “allow yourself to be persuaded or convinced by” your leaders or take their advice. Submit in 13:17 is more like “yield or surrender.” This is a process or battle after which one yields (or surrenders). Submission still occurs, but the picture is one of serious discussion and dialog prior to one party giving way.

The authority of “obey” and “submit” is merely that of the gift of persuading one to the truth.

The point of the verse is not to be a blockhead.

Caveat – 1 Peter 5:5 “You younger men, likewise, be subject (hupotasso) to your elders” and this is the word that really means to submit.

James 3:17 – But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

Conclusion:

There is a surprising lack of emphasis on church leaders in the letters to the churches.

Congregational consensus is the NT norm for church government (not majority rule, not elder rule). Church polity is to be that of consensus, not command. Authority resides in the church as a whole, not its leaders (Mt 18:15-20).

Generally speaking, church leaders have the same authority as children and slaves (Lk 22:24-27). Leaders are to lead by persuasion, example, life-style, influence and teaching (Heb 13:7).

Elders are to be given special consideration in the consensus process (Heb 13:17), especially when dealing with block heads and young Turks!

Churches are to be more elder-led than elder-ruled (1 Pe 5:1-3).

I was able to attend session 2 of a home church conference put on by NTRF. Here are some not I took from session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings.

The Practice of the Early Church

Session 2 – Participatory Church Meetings

(Steve Atkerson)

1 Corinthians 14:26 – What do we learn about the NT church from this verse? Diversified, Spontaneous, …

Change “each one” to “only one” which option is today’s church more like?

Is the church you meet with like this?

Acts 13:14-15 – Should the church meeting reflect what the synagogue in the NT looked like?

Acts 14:1 – They allowed audience input from the synagogue meetings.

Acts 17:1-2 – Paul’s custom – reasoned with them

Acts 17:10-11

Acts 17:17

Acts 18:4

Acts 19:8

There seems to assume that there was some sort of audience input in the synagogue meetings.

Singing – 1 Corinthians 14:26, Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 5:19

Teaching – 1 Corinthians 14:26, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:42, Romans 12:6-7, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 1:3; 2:11-15, James 3:1

Preaching – Acts 20:7 – Paul preached to the disciples (greek is dialegomai – discussed)

Never preached in a church meeting.

Preaching is a evangelist – outside the church meeting.

Various Charismatic Gifts – 1 Corinthians 14:26

Other gifts to consider:

Acts 2:42 – Prayer

1 Timothy 4:13 – Public reading of scripture

Acts 14:26-27 – Reporting what God is doing through them

How to consider one another (Hebrews)?
Is there a testimony the Lord would have you bring?
- Could you purpose to begin a time of conversational prayer?

Is there a song you like that would edify the church?

- Is there some subject or passage of Scripture to teach on?

What has the Lord shown you this week in your time with Him?

Does your wife spend more time preparing for the meeting (cooking) than you do (considering how to encourage the church)?

A Worship Service – Romans 12:1-2, John 4:21-24

The NT never refers to a church meeting as a worship service.

Tongues – 1 Corinthians 14:26-28

Only a few a week (one at a time), if it is done, it must be with an interpretation.

If there is no interpretation, it must not be done – teaching us that sometimes we can have a legitimate gift from God that he doesn’t want us to use in the meeting.

Prophecy – 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

Only a few a week (one at a time), if it is done, it has to be tested.

Same teaching about the gifts of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 – Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Role of Women – 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35

This passage is controversial… you need to study it and decide for yourself.

But this passage does indicate that their meetings were participatory.

Perhaps this verse is showing us more that the men should be leaders. This could be a dynamic silence that sucks the men into leadership.

Two Questions – 1 Corinthians 14:36 – You have no choice but to contact your church meetings anyway than this.

The Lord’s Command – 1 Corinthians 14:37 – Obey the commands of the bible.

Three Imperatives – 1 Corinthians 14:39-40

Desire earnestly to prophecy.

Don’t forbid to speak in tongues.

All things to be done properly and orderly.

Conclusions that can be drawn from 1 Corinthians 14

Participatory

Fitting and Orderly

Edifying

Lord’s Command

Several people that I know (who attended the conference) have already responded/reacted to it on their blogs.

Alan at “Assembling of the Church” in a post called “Reflections on The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?”
Theron at “Sharing in the Life” in a post called “Last Twelve Verses of Mark Conference”
Steve at “Theological Musings Blog” in a post called “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?”

First, before I begin discussing this conference, let me say that the speakers were showed a great love for Christ by the way they presented their ideas and also interacted between one-another. They all came from a different background, with a different ideas about the ending of Mark; yet they all had the Holy Spirit working in their lives and they treated each other like true brothers. It is a great encouragement to see men striving to act like Christ.

Second, before I begin, again, let me say that this conference was great. It was very interesting but what made it best was being able to fellowship with other believers before, during, and after each session. I was able to meet and fellowship with Steve Sensenig and his wife Christy. Who I at the time only knew of through the blog-o-sphere. I was also able to spend some personal time with Alan Knox and his family for dinner on Friday night, which is always a blessing.

Third, before I begin, again, again, let me say that I had live-blogged the conference. It was hard to do, and I hope that I did not misrepresent any of the speakers, or their positions. I also hope that the blogs flowed well. I know a lot of what I blogged were just key statements/facts that the speakers were trying to get across. So do not take it as a word-for-word transcript. I know I missed a lot of things said, but I think I captured the main ideas (at least, I hope I did).

Okay, now for the actual reaction to the conference:

These were the speakers and their positions (in order of appearance):

Daniel B. Wallace

Mark intended to end his gospel at 16:8, to purposely leave his readers hanging, in order to challenge them to consider Christ.

Maurice Robinson

Mark 16:9-20 is original.

Keith Elliott

Mark did not intend to end his Gospel at 16:8, but 16:9-20 is not original.

David Black

Mark 16:9-20 is the original ending based on the external evidence alone.

Darrell Bock

Mark 16:8 is the ending of this gospel on the basis of external and internal evidence.

[images stolen from SEBTS]

Brief Response:
Each of these speakers used the same “facts” to present their position, just different interpretations of these facts. There was a lot of discussion concerning textual criticism, especially the two manuscripts named Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Most of the discussion concerning these two manuscripts was simply conjecture, but was interesting none-the-less. Dr. Black focused on external evidence (specifically Patristic Fathers) more than internal evidence, but made sure we understood that he thought internal evidence was important to consider. In my opinion Dr. Black had one of the better arguments for 16:9-20 being the original ending of Mark.

My Position:
Given that the majority of Mark 16:9-20 is found elsewhere, I have no problem keeping the ending of Mark. Whether or not it is “original” is beyond me, we’ll find out when the day comes. If I were forced to chose a position, this is the positions I would chose (from top to bottom).

1. Mark 16:9-20 is original.
2. Mark 16:9-20 is not original, but the ending of Mark was lost.
3. Mark 16:8 is Mark’s intended ending.

You may notice that this is the exact opposite to Dr. Bock’s list, the reason is that I just cannot understanding why anyone would end a Gospel with “for” (gar).

Q: Directed to Robinson – If Peter is the source of Mark’s Gospel, why would Mark record that Peter did not believe if Luke recorded that Peter did believe?
A: That is part of the problem…

Q: Directed to Elliott and Bock – They discussed canonicity applying to what books should be in, but did not discuss the form of the book(s). What do you think of this, applying to whether or not the original ending was lost, but the current ending is part of the cannon.
A: Elliott – Willing to go with that. It is the book, and its contents, rather than its position in the corpus.
Bock – Similar; the ending of the book of Deut. is an example of this. But it might not apply to this particular (Mark) situation.
Elliott – The ending is important to the scribes, which is why they had issues with ending Mark.

Q: Directed to Bock (or the whole) – What is taught here is taught elsewhere, does Jesus command us to take up serpents as a sign of faith?
A: What he actually said was “most” of what is taught here is taught elsewhere. The most central things of the Christian faith are not in question.
The idea that I need a sign for the things that God has declared to me, can be of a little offensive to those who hold the Word to a high regard.

Q: Directed to Wallace (perhaps Black) – Do you believe that Matthean priority necessitates the longer ending in Mark?
A: Those who hold to Matthean priority often believe that Mark did go beyond 16:8. He has not seen anyone who holds to Markan priority who think that the long ending is original.

Q: Directed to Wallace – re: Eusebian quote – Use of optative in the quote.
A: No longer dealing with an optative, but a shift to his opinion.

Q: Directed to Elliott – If one were to posit in addition to Mark the individual, if Mark were to have died or for some reason abruptly ended his book at 16:8. Someone knew he intended to write more and included the ending as Mark intended. Would this in one stroke explain the opening verses, the long ending, and several minor agreements, all in one small inclusion.
A: Perhaps.

Q: Directed to Bock – Address DC Parkers views.
A: Claim: You have two kinds of resurrection stories. Empty Tomb and Appearance. Only the Appearance stories affirm a bodily resurrection. Bock’s reply: These stories are not operating in a theological or community vacuum. It is hard to believe that stories intended to deny the resurrection would be incorporated in a body of messages affirming a physical resurrection.

Q: [missed]
A: [ignored]

Q: Directed to Elliott – ha kurios, usage is later theology. Is it not true that this kind of theology is found in the early church and used by Paul?
A: Yes, but why are they so modest in the way they describe Jesus? Why are the gospel writers writing so later, writing modest? Is it because they are being faithful to their sources? Or is it because the Gospel writers are being deliberately anachronistic?

Bock – They are being sensitive to the reader, at the time.
Black – Linguistics could help us and redaction criticism could help us. He would not start with the internal evidence, but the external evidence. Then the internal evidence should form a corroborating understanding of the Gospels.
Robinson – Need to keep with Markan themes.

Q: Directed to Bock – 1) Do you believe that Peter was being Mark’s Gospel? 2) Do you find any parallels with with Acts and Mark.
A: Bock – 1) Yes. 2) No, he doesn’t think so – the audience is an issue there. In Acts you have speeches to people who need to whole answer. Whenever someone reads Mark they are faced with a choice.

Wallace – The longer ending does match Mark’s gospel and Mark’s themes, because whoever wrote it would have wanted to end Mark’s gospel and themes.

Q: Directed to Robinson – Could it not be argued that Mark does end with open-endedness? For example the naked boy running around (what happened to him?)
A: Agreed, but it might not be just open-endedness, but just stating something that happened. Everything else though is prediction or promise, which is different than a boy running away naked.

Dr. Bock responds to the four speakers:

Where we agree (not necessarily presuppositions):
Both readings are old.
What is taught in this section, for the most part, is taught elsewhere.
What we all want to deal with is hard evidence.
Fact must control theory – not vice versa.

The question becomes – why is it that we can deal with the same data and end up in such different places? We are all connecting the dots differently.

We have to be careful of where the line about fact stops and the dot connecting starts.

Bock notes that most (or all) of the speakers started in one area of belief, but after checking their presuppositions they ended up changing their positions.

The evidence is a mixture of dots and lines that connect the dots.

Bock’s own view, Mark 16:8 is the ending of this gospel on the basis of external and internal evidence.
His next likely option was that the ending went missing.
His third option is that the long ending was original.

He believes this because internal evidence is just as important as external evidence, etc.
He holds to Markan Priority. He believes (probably correctly) that in the Early Church there were not only written traditions circulating among the Church but also verbal traditions circulating among the Church.

The synoptic evidence is a little bit peculiar. When Mark gives accounts in relationship to Matthew and Luke, he does it in a little more detail. But in the longer ending of Mark, he goes through a series of really short summaries, which is opposite to what normally happens to Matthew and Luke. But there are places where Mark gives other shorter summaries to Matthew and Luke.

Warning – we have to work with the text and with the history, and we have to be careful about talking about speculation with one another… when we are talking about connecting the dots, someone else could say that you are speculating.

We must be aware of brittle fundamentalism. Setting up a question in such a way that if it breaks it will shatter.

External Evidence:
This is a key element, not just counting manuscripts, or where they come from.
The external evidence that is really important are not Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B). It is the versions and the fathers that are important in corroborating this problem.

There is evidence and the people working with the bible were aware of the fact that there were two endings of Mark.

What this evidence actually shows us is that these two readings were in competition with each other from the very beginning.

Gaps in the manuscript shows us that we do not know why the gaps are there.

You have to explain how we ended up with the long ending, and how we ended up with three variations OR you have to explain how we ended up with the shorter ending, and how we ended up with three variations.

What would create and ending at just verse 8 if I had 9-20?

Bock discusses some issues with the other speaker’s “evidence” – such as the denial of the group denial in other Gospel (other than Mark) – but there is another group denial in Luke… the only difference is that it was “women” who told of Jesus, not just Mary.

Bock still finds this longer ending as more than likely non-Markan than Markan… he finds it difficult to view this as something that Mark penned, originally or subsequently.

Other issues – Was Mark written on a roll or codex? Probably a roll. The issue of whether or not the Mark was rolled up or not, we don’t know… “some people rewind tapes, some people don’t.”

Virtually all of Mark is in the other Gospels, so you are going to get him whether you want to or not.

The most difficult question for those who holds to Markan Priority is the patristic evidence.

Bock believes there are numerous problems and questions with Black’s belief. Wonders whether or not Matthew, if written for the Jews would have been written in Greek. What actual evidence do we have for Paul using Matthew or Luke, or commissioning Luke’s Gospel?

Discusses Elliott’s view that there is a problem with priority view of Mary being in front of the list, versus Peter being in front of the list. In the ancient culture, women couldn’t be witnesses. A little less formal list would have Peter in front of the list.

Conclusion:
How in the world did we get an ending in Mark that ended with gar. Why wouldn’t Mark finish by writing the fulfillment of the prophecies?

Mark is being subtle, you have the Word of God, you have the promises, you know what happens.

What happened with the elder son from the parable?
This can be found in Acts, what happened with the Jews? What happened with Paul?
But the story is about the expansion of the Word of God, not about Paul.
(he eludes to Lazarus – perhaps the fact that he was about to be stoned after being raised from the dead, but we do not find out what happens).

Everything about Mark is screaming that he is raised, so it was an intentional choice. All of Mark’s readers are faced with the same choice – there was no guarantee that Mark’s readers were going to wait until Jesus appeared to them.

We haven’t settled yet on this question – if the longer ending is not Markan, does that mean it is non-Canonical? Not necessarily. If we equate canonicity with an original level of writing, then it goes. But that is not necessarily a given.

What Bock does not think is going on is (David Parker’s solution) what happened with the ending of Mark is that radical theological interpretations that came to be stifled by later ecclesiastical interpretations.

It is a difficult problem to sort out and there are numerous forks in the road. Depending on what you do at the forks, takes you down certain roads.

Regardless of all those forks in the word. We agree on these things – Both readings are old, what is taught here is taught elsewhere. Where does this leave us? In a pretty good place, whether it is long or short, the content does not make that much of a difference.

Do not get too tied up in knots about whether or not 16:9-20 is there. Go and share the gospel.