Why aren't there more Miracles done by the Western Church?

I know many others have asked this question and I ask it myself sometimes.

8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.
12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.  -John 14:8-14

Jesus promises that his followers will be doing miracles, even greater than his own! But where are they among the western church?

Paul was familiar with miracles and was somewhat famous in Asia for performing healings.

8 It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery; and Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him.  -Acts 18:8

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God; 9 but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyran'nus. 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. 11 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.   -Acts 19:8-12

Paul was also extremely familiar with suffering, imprisonment and hardship of his own and of his companions. I don't think I need to give references to Paul's own sufferings since examples are so readily available from his letters and Acts. His companions seemed to have suffered just as much as him,

25 I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphrodi'tus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has been longing for you all, and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill. 27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 I am the more eager to send him, therefore, that you may rejoice at seeing him again, and that I may be less anxious. 29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me.  -Philippians 2:25-30

Paul was very concerned and yet seems to have felt personally unable to heal his friend, Epaphrodi'tus, even though in Ephesus he performed many miracles of healing. It is important to note however that Paul didn't see the need to discuss theological reasons for the difference between the two situations. Paul was not confused about why his friend was sick and almost died. Paul's theology has made room for the Spirit to choose the situations and times to enact miracles, the lack of miracles doesn't not cause Paul to doubt that they exist or question his faith. I would like to learn more from Paul's theology - he seems to have a healthy contentment about miracles, neither disbelief, nor obsession.

Religion is a crutch for the weak

How would Jesus respond to such a comment?


The Pharisees derided Jesus for spending time with tax collectors and sinners.

 "²⁹ Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table^j with them. ³⁰The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" ³¹Jesus answered, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; ³²I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:29-32

 Jesus basically answers the Pharisees with the same response, but he uses a person (physician) instead of an inanimate object (crutch). He is implying that he is the physician and that sinners (the sick) need his help.


I think that Jesus would agree with the "Religion is a crutch for the weak" comment because he really said it first. Jesus is the crutch or the doctor that lame and sick people need.


The passage from Luke shows that Jesus asks the pharisees to decide in their own hearts if they think they are among the righteous or among the sinners when he says,

"³²I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:32

He both gives information of the purpose of his ministry as well as allows his listeners to interpret who the categories of "sinners" and "righteous" belong to, instead of just saying "them" and "you". Jesus is hoping that his listeners will reanalyze their presuppositions and come to the truth that all his listeners are included within the category of "sinners".


Jesus would ask the same question after agreeing with the "religion is a crutch" comment. Asking something like,

"Are you among the weak or among the strong?"

Is civil disobedience a biblical concept?

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down just a few days ago --- peacefully. In my opinion this event is extremely important in world politics that will have rippling effects for decades to come. These effects are already apparent as Algeria is bracing for protests inspired by the successful movements in Tunisia and Egypt which over threw their respective governments. Other nations such as Yemen, Sudan, Jordan, Iran and Serbia are struggling to deal with movements inspired by Tunisia and now Egypt. 

Should Christians involve themselves in these sort of movements? 


Great Christian leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind, and the answer seems to be as resounding "Yes of course!"

Martin Luther King Jr.

I agree that the answer seems to be an easy one and simple common sense, but a few things in the Bible make me think we should not answer this question so quickly. 

"For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. " 1 Peter 2:13-17

Peter's final command to "Honor the emperor" should haunt us, as we read else where in the book that the church is suffering persecution. 

"Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed." 1 Peter 4:12-13

This persecution is possibly originating from the Imperial government itself, and in the very least the local and imperial authorities are turning a blind eye to the persecution. Yet Peter is calling for the church to honor their government, not protest because injustice and corruption. 


Which biblical figures practiced civil disobedience? Where they honored for it? 
Absolom was killed while hanging from a tree (2 Samuel 18:15). Probably symbolic that he was under God's curse (Deuteronomy 21:23).


What about figures who did not practice civil disobedience in the face of injustice?
Take a look at David's example in the midst of the violence and injustice of King Saul. 

If Christians are to be involved under what circumstances? And what causes?

Who instituted the organized church?

Is the organized church necessary in the Christian faith? I think this question hinges on where the authority and inspiration of the church comes from. Was it Jesus' idea or someone else's? 

When did the apostles "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom?"

"For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28

Lets make some observations about the text. 

1. Who was Jesus talking to? "His disciples" (16:24), but Jesus said only "some of you standing here" (16:28), therefore not all of them would see. When Matthew says "disciples" he does not necessarily mean just the twelve apostles, though I think we can assume that the twelve were implied to be there. I think it is safe to assume as well that Jesus was including at least one of the twelve in the group that would see him coming in his kingdom. 
2. What is the context? Jesus is explaining what he demands from his followers and giving them perspective and reasons for why they should follow him. (16:24-26)
3. Who is "the Son of Man?" The Son of Man is Jesus himself (16:13-15)
4. What event is "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom?" It seems to be the second coming of Christ, since it is the same event as verse 27 in which Jesus says that he will come with his angels in the glory of the Father to judge the world. (Could possibly be figurative but would be very difficult to justify that)

The second coming of Christ hasn't happened yet and haven't all the apostles died? Did Jesus prophesy falsely then? 

I think we need to take a little bit of a closer look at the text. Specifically Jesus says that some of them will "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." This implies an event similar to when Jesus ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51), specifically when he descends in the second coming (Acts 1:11). 

"Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. he is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, "King of kings and Lord of lords." Revelation 19:11-16

Who said "I saw" in this passage? John (Revelation 22:8). Well anticlimactically I think that this is the answer to the question. John saw a vision of the second coming of Christ before he died; he wasn't actually present for the second coming.  From what Jesus prophesied we can conclude that other disciples also saw visions of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. 

Early on the apostles thought that "the kingdom of Israel" was going to be restored in their life time, 

"So when they had come together, they asked him, 'Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?' ". Acts 1:6

They probably thought that Jesus' prophesy supported this idea. But they had both the timing and the fundamental details wrong. 

The Gospel of Mark doesn't have the Resurrection of Christ?

Part 1: Quote from The Last Templar

Following in my series of posts about The Last Templar, this post will be the first post of several because I think that this topic and question will take a while to flush out. 

The following is taken from an argument against the reliability of the Biblical Gospels by an antagonist in Khoury's book, The Last Templar, named Vance:

"None of the Gnostic Gospels had a passion narrative,' Vance pointed out, 'but the four gospels Iranaeus chose did. They spoke about Jesus' death on the Cross and about His resurrection. They linked the story being promoted to the fundamental ritual of the Eucharist, the Last Supper. And they didn't even start off that way,' he scoffed. 'In its earliest version, the first of them to be include, the Gospel of Mark, doesn't talk about a virgin birth at all, nor does it have the Resurrection in it. It just ends with Jesus' empty tomb, where a mysterious young man, a transcendental being of some kind, like an angel, tells a group of women who come to the tomb that Jesus is waiting for them in Galilee. And this terrifies these women. They run off and they don't tell anyone about it -- which makes you wonder how Mark or whoever wrote that gospel would have ever heard about it in the first place. But that's how Mark originally ended his gospel. It's only in Matthew - fifty years later - and then in Luke, ten years after that, that elaborate post-Resurrection appearances were added to Mark's original ending, which is itself then rewritten." (The Last Templar Chapter 67, page 323)

Vance implies that Mark's gospel was originally written without the explicit account of Jesus' resurrection and that the witnesses of the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone about it. This seems like a very strange way for the conclusion of the original gospel of Mark to be written. Is this true? Where did Khoury get this information?

Part 2: Where does this come from?

I was very confused when I was studying Mark last year and read the footnote in Mark 16:8 stating,

"Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9-20. In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful." (New Revised Standard Version, Mark 16:8 footnote)

The Codex Sinaiticus: one of  "the most ancient authorities"

It seemed to imply that the book originally ends as Vance suggests and that most scholars agree that verses 16:9-20 were added later. Here is the passage in question from Mark 16:1-20 taken from the New Revised Standard Version,

¹ When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. ²And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. ³They had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?"⁴When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. ⁵As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. ⁶But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." ⁸So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.^a

THE SHORTER ENDING OF MARK

[[And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.^b]]

THE LONGER ENDING OF MARK

⁹ [[Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.¹⁰She went out and told those who had been with him, while they were mourning and weeping.¹¹But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.¹² After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. ¹³And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.¹⁴ Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.^c 15And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news^d to the whole creation. ¹⁶The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. ¹⁷And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; ¹⁸they will pick up snakes in their hands,^e and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." ¹⁹ So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. ²⁰And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it.^f]]

FOOTNOTES:a Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9-20. In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful. b Other ancient authorities add Amen c Other ancient authorities add, in whole or in part, And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now"--thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, "The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, that they may inherit the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness that is in heaven." d Or gospel e Other ancient authorities lack in their hands f Other ancient authorities add Amen

What was the original ending that the original author wrote?

Part 3: What was the original ending?

I had originally written a segment giving a few reasons to believe that the original ending was the short ending, but after considering it a bit more I think I should refrain from trying to convince you that the short ending is the original one. I will leave the argument for which ending is the original to other blogs, articles and books. I am interested in the answer to this question, but don't feel that I have read enough to try to convince others at this point. Please post links in the comments section of this post for worth while articles discussing which ending is the original. This will help future readers (as well as myself) find the background and facts they are looking for to answer this question. As well, I will try to update this part of this post with information that I find or I might start another post which I will include a link here if that happens.

A few questions to consider,

• Why were multiple endings written when the other gospels don't have variant endings?
• Is it significant that there are more than two variant endings?

This post was begun with the intention of exploring the possibility of the shortest ending (v8) and why the author would end it so abruptly. In the following parts I will be assuming that the shortest ending is the original and will continue discussing implications and interpretations of this possibility.

If the original ending were the shortest ending, why would the author end it so inconclusively: without an appearance of the resurrected Christ? Was he trying to subtly say that Jesus Christ was never resurrected?

Part 4: Why an inconclusive ending?

The author was not trying to sow doubt about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the author were trying to do that he would not have included the message from the angel who said, "He has been raised...". Compared to the other gospels this ending seems very minimal, but it does not contradict the resurrection of Christ. The tomb was empty and the angel proclaims the resurrection.

On the other hand, I am venturing to say that it does contain a point of contradiction from the other gospels. Consider the last line of the Gospel of Mark:

"So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." Mark 16:8

Now compare to the account from the other gospels:

1. "So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples." Matthew 28:8
2. "Then they remembered his words, and returned from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest." Luke 24:8-9
3. "So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb...' " John 20:2

In contrast all the other gospels give an account of women telling the disciple(s) of the empty tomb.

Why would the author want to detail the resurrection of Christ but not the proclamation of his resurrection? (The author wrote about the resurrection so therefore he was himself proclaiming it, then why would he not give the account of how he and other's heard the news of the resurrection?)

Part 5: What were the author's motivations in writing?

To answer this question we need to know the author's broader occasion and reason in writing. As well we will need a bit more historical background here about the author, time period and original intended reader(s).

Author: As for the author, I think that "John, who was called Mark" (Acts 15:37), the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), wrote the gospel of Mark, as the canonical title suggests. Many church fathers claim that John Mark wrote the gospel. Papias said that Mark was the author. Justin Martyr quoted from the gospel of Mark as being "The Memoirs of Peter". Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria both said that Mark wrote down Peter's teachings. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue states that Mark was the author. Peter himself even refers to Mark as his son (1 Peter 5:13) giving weight to the fact that Mark spent a lot of time around Peter. 

In 1 Peter we have an example of Peter commissioning Silvanus to write for him as he states that he is writing "through" Silvanus (1 Peter 5:12). It seems that either Mark was commissioned by Peter to write this gospel or Mark drew from what he learned from Peter to write this gospel. It seems unlikely that Peter himself wrote the book because then it would have been called The Gospel of Peter which would have been a more prestigious title coming from one of the twelve apostles, instead a humbler but probably accurate title was the one that stuck.

Date & Location: Most scholars agree that the apostles Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome under the Neronian persecution (64-68 C.E.) of Christians sometime around 64 to 65 C.E. He was probably imprisoned there twice, first under house arrest for at least 2 years, recorded by Luke (Acts 28:16, 30). I agree with some scholars who think that Paul was set free and then imprisoned a second time. We can make this assumption with some confidence because Luke's account in Acts which records Paul's journeys until his imprisonment in Rome doesn't account for several places which Paul claims to have traveled, namely Crete (Titus 1:5) and possibly Spain (Romans 15:28). As well the Luke account does not seem provide a matching situation from which Paul writes in 1 Timothy.

Regardless of their being one or two imprisonments in Rome there is plenty of evidence in Paul's letters that Mark was with him in Rome probably on two separate occasions. Mark sends greetings through Paul who is in prison most likely during his first imprisonment in Rome (Colossians 4:10, Philemon 1:24). Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to Rome to help him (2 Timothy 4:11); Paul is in prison - most agree that 2 Timothy was Paul's last letter and was written right before his death in Rome. This shows us that Mark probably came to Rome right before Paul's death sometime during the height of the Neronian persecution. Irenaeus claims that Mark wrote after Peter's death in Rome which was probably around 64-65 C.E. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue states that Mark was written from the "regions of Italy". And Clement of Alexandria places the writing in Rome.

Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter from prison in Rome. In 2 Peter, he believed that he would soon be martyred (2 Peter 1:14).

I think that Mark wrote from Rome (or somewhere nearby) during the persecution under Emperor Nero. He also wrote after Peter (and Paul) were martyred but before the end of the persecution in 68 C.E. Probably very shortly after Peter's death around 66 C.E.

Occasion & Original Recipient(s): If Mark wrote from Rome during the persecution then it would no doubt be a galvanizing event in this life as close friends and life mentors were being killed and tortured around him. He and other believers would have been running and hiding in fear for their lives. Nero had used the Christians as a scapegoat for his own crimes. Nero burned down part of Rome in order to build new opulent structures. He claimed that the Christians had started the fire and fueled a blood thirsty and cruel, state sponsored persecution.

Mark's occasion for writing no doubt was influenced by the events of this persecution - and Peter and Paul's deaths. Peter treated him like his own son (1 Peter 5:13). Paul considered Mark a valuable asset to him (2 Timothy 4:11) after previously considering him a deserter because he abandoned Paul during difficult ministry (Acts 15:38). Barnabas discipled his cousin, Mark, when Paul thought he was not worth the trouble (Acts 15:39). Mark wanted to faithfully continue in ministry as these pillars of the faith had commissioned him through their deaths.

Mark's gospel was written to fellow persecuted believers who needed encouragement and instruction after many of the apostles and leaders were being killed. These believers were most likely from the church in Rome and Italy. There are many clues from the text that we may use to come to this conclusion: Latin technical terms (Mark 5:9; 6:27; 15:16,39), Greek expressions explained by Latin ones (Mark 12:42; 15:16), Roman time reckoning (Mark 6:48; 13:35; 14:17; 15:1), explanation of Jewish customs and practices (Mark 2:26; 4:31; 7:3,11; 9:43; 12:18; 14:12; 15:42), translation of Aramaic words and phrases (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22,34), and the mentioning of Alexander and Rufus by name (Mark 15:21; Romans 16:13). The specific mention of Alexander and Rufus is exciting because "Rufus" is mentioned in both the Gospel of Mark and in Romans. From Paul's letter to the Romans it seems that Rufus is a resident and church leader in Rome. Mark gives special mention of "the father of Alexander and Rufus" who was Simon of Cyrene, the man who carried Jesus' cross. Mark 15:21 seems to imply that the original reader is acquainted with these two men. The only mention of a "Rufus" in the rest of the New Testament is in Roman. There could be several people called Rufus, but this connection does lend weight to the original recipients living in Rome.

Genre: Every writer has a reason for writing whether it is a journal for personal reflection only, or it is a movie script for a contract, or it an old fashioned holiday post card to a family member left behind. Usually the type of genre tells us what the purpose of the work is. For instance, there is a format for writing business letters, a format for writing a haiku and even a general format for writing a shopping list. In the case of the gospels, they are Hellenistic biographies. Hellenistic biographies "sought primarily to derive moral lessons from the people and events of the past. They were written to teach, to exhort, and to improve their readers." (Mark D Roberts)

In conclusion, we have gathered that the author (Mark) was motivated "to teach, to exhort, and to improve" persecuted Christian believers in Rome. He wanted to carry on the ministry of his mentors in the faith: Peter and Paul. Mark felt a great responsibility to remain faithful through difficult and dangerous ministry, partially because he felt that he had been given a second chance (Acts 15:39) and wanted to make it count.

What message is Mark motivated to send to the church in Rome?

Part 6: What was the message?

The main idea that Mark is trying to communicate through the narrative of Christ's life and death is that Jesus came to suffer and bear persecution as a servant King. Mark, as a "deserter" himself at one time, was writing to call believers to hold on to Christ in the face of persecution and to not stop proclaiming the gospel in fear of imprisonment. Mark specifically addresses issues of betrayal, suffering, and boldness as Christians. Mark uses emotion and key events in Jesus' life to remind the suffering saints that Christ is worth all their life.

How did Mark put this message in the form of a biography? I thought there were only facts in a biography how can you make it communicate your own message? What their heavy editing? Was Mark selective in what he included in the book?

Part 7: How did he communicate his message?

Hellenistic biographies are not exactly the same genre as our modern biographies. For example, the events don't have to be in chronological order. Luke reveals this in his introduction to his gospel, 

"Insomuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they have been handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seems fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4

This answers many questions people have about why there seems to be discrepancies in the order of events between the gospel accounts.  Luke is implying that the gospels previous to his were not written with a chronological backbone. Why not!? Well, that wasn't a requirement for writing in that genre. It is important to note that Luke does not implying in saying this that the previous gospel writers were doing a disservice to the testimony of Christ. His tone implies that he feels that he is merely giving the most detailed and chronological account of the gospel, not that his gospel should replace the others or is superior to them. Theophilus was very likely a Roman noble who became a believer. Some people think that Theophilus had commissioned Luke to write the history of the life of Christ and the church in what we now know as The Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles (practically two chapters of the same work). Since Luke has no problem with the fact that the other gospels were written in loose chronological time frame, neither should we. If the original readers knew that the authors didn't intend to follow the chronology of events very strictly then it wouldn't be fair to accuse the authors of being unreliable or untrustworthy. To the contrary, they were merely writing within the recognized and defined bounds of their selected genre. 

Fine, but why would the authors of the other gospels not write around chronology? What did the gospel writers center their writing around then? 

Lets first answer the questions, 'Was there heavy editing?' and 'Was Mark selective in what he included in the book?' Luke reveals that he was "compiling an account" from the sources that were "handed down." These sources probably included written accounts, oral stories and personal interviews. Luke (as well as Mark) selected what accounts to include from his sources; he didn't include everything, only what he thought was important for his friend Theophilus to know. The gospel authors were selective because they had very specific intended readers. They weren't like newspaper editors who were trying to write an article that would be read by the masses, all with varying political, religious and social stances. The gospel authors (usually - at least in the case of Luke and probably Mark) were writing on a much more personal level to a specific group of people - all fellow believers. As we discussed earlier Mark's intended audience was the persecuted church in and around Rome. 

Now back to our previous question: 'What did the gospel writers center their writings around then?' 

We can't forget what the purpose of Hellenistic biographies was: "primarily to derive moral lessons from the people and events of the past. They were written to teach, to exhort, and to improve their readers." Therefore the gospel writers chose events, parables, prophecies and teachings of Jesus that centered around messages that they wanted to teach and encourage their readers with. The writer centered their works around themes. They were arranged to remind the church of the teachings of Jesus. An encompassing representation of Jesus' teachings comes out in each of the gospels, but we shouldn't then assume that the gospels are just a random sample of stories arranged loosely in order of events. The authors were highlighting certain teachings and commands of Christ by using creative literary techniques and repeating important ideas. 

For instance, Mark repeatedly included events from the Messiah's life that are reminiscent of persecution, suffering, and torture. All things that the intended readers would very quickly pick up on. For instance,

  ⁹ "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. ¹⁰And the good news^b must first be proclaimed to all nations. ¹¹When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. ¹²Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; ¹³and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.  -Mark 13:9-13

 In Mark 10:29-30, Mark mentions "persecutions" in his record where Matthew and Luke (Matthew 19:29, Luke 18:29) when recording the same account leave it out.

²⁹Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news,^{f 30}who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age--houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions--and in the age to come eternal life. -Mark 10:29-30

The obscure detail in about Jesus being with the "wild beasts" while he was tempted in the wilderness make sense if when you consider that Mark is writing to Christians who as experiencing first hand death by wild beasts in the Colosseum of Rome!

¹² And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. ¹³He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him. -Mark 1:12-13

The addition of this detail doesn't make much sense otherwise.

Mark was reminding the Christians of the temptations, persecutions, and sufferings of Christ - as well as, his perseverance, faithfulness and the glory that he received for enduring the trials. He was communicating to the readers by making Christ as their example for suffering and obedience.

Part 8: How else was Christ meant to be an example?

Maybe you've read Mark and noted that Jesus tries to keep his identity somewhat secretive.

³⁴And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. -Mark 1:34

⁴³After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, ⁴⁴saying to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." ⁴⁵But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus^t could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. -Mark 1:43-45 

¹¹Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, "You are the Son of God!" ¹²But he sternly ordered them not to make him known.  -Mark 3:11-12

⁴³He strictly ordered them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.  -Mark 5:43

 ³⁶Then Jesusⁱ ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. -Mark 7:36

²⁶Then he sent him away to his home, saying, "Do not even go into the village." 
-Mark 8:26

²⁷ Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?" ²⁸And they answered him, "John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." ²⁹He asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Messiah."^{h 30}And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.  -Mark 8:27-30

It is important to note that one reason that Jesus did this seems to given in Mark 1:45 above, which implies that Jesus would get mobbed by the huge crowds of people trying to touch him. This is one reason why he stayed in the country side and let people come to him. In this context though Jesus was commanding that the leper not tell anyone of the miracle that Jesus did. In other cases though Jesus doesn't want his identity to be broad-casted by demons or by his disciples as in the case of Mark 8:30.

There is only one example I have found in which Jesus tells someone to proclaim what "the Lord has done" (note: not what Jesus has done),

¹⁹But Jesus^e refused, and said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you." ²⁰And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.  -Mark 5:19-20

Even more interesting to observe is that in Chapter 8 when Peter proclaims that Jesus is this Messiah, then Jesus begins to talk openly about the suffering and death he must undergo. We also find that Jesus is more open about his identity - culminating in his admission of his divinity to the Chief Priests.

³¹ Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. ³²He said all this quite openly.  -Mark 8:31-32

⁹ As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.  -Mark 9:9

³⁰ They went on from there and passed through Galilee. He did not want anyone to know it; ³¹for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again." ³²But they did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.   -Mark 9:30-32

³² They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. He took the twelve aside again and began to tell them what was to happen to him, ³³saying, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; ³⁴they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again."  -Mark 10:32-34

⁶¹But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah,^j the Son of the Blessed One?" ⁶²Jesus said, "I am; and

   'you will see the Son of Man

   seated at the right hand of the Power,'

   and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.' "

 We also see that Mark keeps giving details of Jesus moving closer and closer to Jerusalem, even that he was specifically walking ahead of his disciples going up to Jerusalem,

³⁰ They went on from there and passed through Galilee.  -Mark 9:30

¹ He left that place and went to the region of Judea and^a beyond the Jordan.  -Mark 10:1

³² They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. -Mark 10:32

This transition point found in Chapter 8 around Peter's admission that Jesus is the Messiah is not my own observations but a fairly well known structure for the book. Below I have included a diagram of structure of the book as I see it for reference. This transition is usually called "the Veiled/Unveiled Messiah" or "the Hidden/Revealed Messiah".

Diagram of the structure of the Gospel of Mark

Now we can try to relate this to the message that Mark had for the church in Rome. How does Christ's example in being veiled and unveiled or hidden and revealed speak to the church? How would they interpret this?

Part 9: What does being hidden and revealed mean to the Original Reader?

Why was Jesus' identity hidden or veiled? When he was revealed then he was killed by the authorities because he claimed to be God. I am not implying that Jesus didn't claim to be God until just before his death, because we see in Mark as well as even more in the other gospels that Jesus clearly said that he was God in so many words on multiple occasions during his ministry. But was I am saying is that Jesus didn't try to get himself killed as soon as possible by proclaiming he was God by every means available to himself. He was shrewd and wise in how he said things, just as how he spoke in parables to that the truth would reach ears that could hear. Jesus claimed to have been lead by the Spirit in all his ministry.

For the original reader the same is true for them. In the midst of persecution, they could not openly claim to be Christians, though they wouldn't deny the truth. Mark is showing that Jesus is their example for being hidden and revealed in their faith that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark is encouraging the Believers to remain hidden as they are going about their daily lives - seeking opportunity for ministry as Jesus did, BUT remembering that there is a time to reveal the gospel to others. This revealing the truth can and will result in persecution and death like Jesus, but you must not turn back - they must set their face towards "Jerusalem" like Jesus did.

The example of Christ for the Original Reader is to be lead by the Spirit in being Hidden and Revealed in their faith.

But how does this relate to using the ending that the author did?

Part 10: What is the message of the short ending?

Historically, we know that the church debated over what to do with Christians who denied Christ during periods of Roman persecution but then wanted to rejoin the church after the persecution subsided. This among other things shows us that a significant number of Christians were renouncing their faith in the face of persecution and death. In effect the short ending is meant for believers who are considering abandoning the faith.

The reader is reading along and then the book ends with,

 ⁵As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. ⁶But he said to them, "Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you." ⁸So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. -Mark 16:5-8

The readers reaction should be, "Hey, that's not how it ends!" As we discussed in Part 4, the ending at verse 8 doesn't just stop short but as written it implies that the women didn't tell anyone of the resurrection which is not what the other gospels say. The fact that we are asking why the short ending is exactly the authors point - in effect he is asking: "Is this how you want the story to end? Is this how it is supposed to end? If not then don't let it end this way! You were commissioned just like the women at the tomb to proclaim the gospel." The author is challenging the Original Readers to not abandon the truth out of fear, to not be afraid to proclaim the good news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ even if it results in death.

The church is called to suffer as Christ suffered, they are not exempt from the life that he lived:

³¹ Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. ³²He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ³³But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things."

³⁴ He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ³⁵For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel,ⁱ will save it. ³⁶For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? ³⁷Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? ³⁸Those who are ashamed of me and of my words^j in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." -Mark 8:31-38