THE LORD SPOKE (February 13)

Daily Reflections from Scripture:

Old Testament: Leviticus 10-11

Did Nadab and Abihu deserve to die? Obviously, since it was God who required their lives, the answer to that question has to be “yes”. But have you ever wondered what was so bad about what they did? They were ordained priests, doing what priests were supposed to do.

Or were they? They did something that was “unauthorized”. Webster’s definition of “authorize” includes: “to invest with legal authority, empower, sanction, justify”. What then was the evil committed by Nadab and Abihu?

1. In their case, every detail was spelled out. They were not free to improvise. Originality was not in their job description.
2. If they were doing something unauthorized, it’s very likely that they were not doing what they were supposed to be doing at that moment.
3. They did not properly value God’s commandments. Their job was very simple - just do what God says.
4. Every detail of their work and their environment had typological significance. If God didn’t command it, then what they were doing did not accurately depict theological truth. In other words, they were demonstrating theological error in what they were doing.

God is a stickler for truth! When it comes to teaching His truth - or preaching it, or singing it, or depicting it visually, or illustrating it physically, or any other means of portraying it - He requires accuracy. He is loving and He is forgiving, but He is also demanding. Truth with a little error mixed in with it ceases to be truth.


New Testament: Mark 16

Should they be in there or not? The last few verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) are problematic! The arguments against their inclusion are:

1. They’re not found in several important early manuscripts. They do appear in most later manuscripts but if they’re original, why are they missing in the most important early ones?
2. They are peculiar to the rest in vocabulary and style. For example, the word “week” in vs. 9 is different from the word used in vs. 2, although the two phrases are otherwise parallel. Or, why is the detail about Mary Magdalene given in vs. 9 when she has already been introduced in vs. 1?
3. Some of the theological content presents major difficulties and is not found elsewhere in Scripture. For example, “believe and be baptized” for salvation (vs. 16) or the snake-handling and drinking of poison (vs. 18).
4. Eusebius (c. 265-340), the earliest “church historian” after the book of Acts, and other early Church fathers expressed doubt about their genuine character.

The external evidence (#1 & 4) confirms the internal evidence (# 2 & 3). The abrupt ending seems to cry out for some supplement but that alone is not sufficient reason to accept this or any other addition without much better textual evidence. Sadly, that is lacking. Consequently, almost all editions of the English New Testament place some kind of marker or footnote here to indicate the problematic nature of Mark 16:9-20.

Though it leaves us with some unanswered questions, the established principles of textual criticism favor the abrupt ending. The passage may be genuine but it doesn’t appear likely and caution should be used in basing any doctrine on this passage without finding support elsewhere in Scripture.

This is one of those “hard nuts” of Scripture which we’re not presently able to crack.