Mark’s Gospel– no Long Ending? Cut from Concordia?; "Docetic" Orthodoxy?

[2023-08-14: updated links to bookofconcord.org; 2020-04-09: added note in red on grape juice vs. wine]
      A number of writings have appeared concerning a recently released Concordia Commentary by James Voelz and Christopher Mitchell, Mark 8:27-16:20 (CPH 2019). A negative Amazon review by Kelly D. Smith ("Good Exegesis but Author denies Scripture") provides a pertinent quote from the chief author of this Commentary, Dr. James W. Voelz of Concordia Seminary.  Mr. Smith states (emphasis mine): "Voelz, in his own words, believes, 

'Mark 16:9-20 should not be adopted as the genuine ending of the Gospel according to Mark and its exclusion from the Second Gospel should occasion no difficulties for Lutherans who have committed themselves to the confessional documents of the Book of Concord.' (page 1237)"

Mr. Smith has done a service to the Church by publishing this quote.  It opens up the question for all Lutherans as to what impact a loss of Mark 16:9-20 would mean to the Book of Concord, or the "Lutheran Confessions".  Others have written to defend against Voelz's denial of this "Long Ending" (LE), but I want to provide the reader with an online clickable index to the exact portions that would have to be omitted or changed from the Lutheran Book of Concord. I am including in the following table not only the hyperlinks to the BookOfConcord (Triglotta) references, but also the page numbers of the currently sold English printed versions of the Lutheran Book of Concord:

Verse	Description (w/ link to BookOfConcord.org)		Triglotta (w/ link)	McCain	Kolb- Wengert
Mark 16:15	CA XXVIII Ecclesiastical Power 7; (Augsburg Confession) “…the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments. For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, … Mark 16:15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature.		85	58	93
	FC SD V Law and Gospel 4: (Formula of Concord)“… when Christ after His resurrection commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel in all the world, Mark 16:15”		952	554	582
	FC SD XI Election 28: “… it is Christ's command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Mark 16:15”		1073	606	645
Mark 16:15 ff.	LC Preface 20” (Large Catechism) “… our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the holy body and blood of Christ, namely, the text which Matthew 28:19ff and Mark 16:15f record at the close of their Gospels when Christ said farewell to His disciples and sent them forth.”		579	339	359
Mark 16:16	AC IX: 1-2 Baptism: “Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation”		47	35 (teach  that Baptism is necessary for salvation)	42 (necessary [“to salvation” omitted.])
	AP XXIV [XII] Sacrifice of the Mass 18: (Apology [Defense] of the Augsburg Confession) “… God here[in Baptism] offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16:16”		389	222	261
	SA III VIII Confession 7: (Smalcald Articles) “For even those who believe before Baptism, or become believing in Baptism, believe through the preceding outward Word, as the adults, who have come to reason, must first have heard: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, even though they are at first unbelieving”		495	280	322
	SC Baptism: (Small Catechism) “Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		551	339	359
	LC Short Preface, Baptism 21: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		579	358	385
	LC Baptism 4-5: “… in St. Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”		733	423	457
	LC Baptism 23: “… this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		737	425	459
	LC Baptism 31: “Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		739	426	459
	FC SD XI Election 39: “Therefore the meaning is not at all the one referred to above, namely, that the elect are to be such as even… do not truly believe in Christ, Mark 16:16”		1077	608	647
Mark 16:20	FC SD VIII Person of Christ, 27: “ … not only as God, but also as man [has dominion and] rules from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth…  as the … apostles testify, Mark 16:20”		1025	586	621

      Is it not strange that the LC-MS, which promotes its sacramental theology, would also remove one of the foundational Bible verses that support it – one of the verses that constitutes what Luther calls the "outward Word"?  Hmmm... maybe the LC-MS is not so "sacramental" after all?  (The LCMS also now teaches that the use of grape juice, instead of wine, is not forbidden in the Lord's Supper, contrary to orthodox Lutheran teaching. Confessing, p. 887, fn 131; cp CTQ 1981, v. 45,1, p. 77-80, 🔗, CTM 1939, v. 10,5 p 321-330, 🔗); Pastor and People, p. 57-58) [2020-04-09: see also BJS essay by Karl Weber, "Fruit of Which Vine?".] —

Is Orthodoxy "docetic"? Not the LC-MS…
      Of greater importance in this controversy is the doctrine of Holy Scripture promoted by the teachers of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod today.  Prof. Voelz does not teach the Divinity of Holy Scripture. (see here)  He and his LC-MS officially teach that the Bible is divine and human.  He explicitly charges those who hold to the full Divinity (e.g. Luther, Walther, etc.) as "docetic" (see this blog post, What Does This Mean?, p. 242).  This charge is meant to be comparable to the other "Docetism" heresy of early Christianity.  But that heresy was not about the Holy Scripture, it was about the Person of Christ. Voelz holds to a low view of Holy Scripture indicating his (and the LC-MS's) theology and exegesis.  It is exactly the charge by German theologians against orthodox teaching in Walther's day, against the old Synodical Conference.  So it is no wonder that he makes his assertion of "no difficulties for Lutherans" because he would have Lutherans believe and follow him, as a high scholar, rather than to "bow or kneel before… words" as Luther instructs his hearers to do.

No, neither Dr. James Voelz nor his LC-MS are worthy to be listened to in this matter.  I will listen to the Reformers, I will listen to the Lutheran Confessions.  I will only listen to those who "believe, teach, and confess" the Divinity of Holy Scripture (i.e. sola Scriptura): 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
= = = = = = =  After the break below, read Paul E. Kretzmann's Commentary on this matter:  = = = = = = =

J. C. W. Lindemann vs LC-MS: Postscript

      After reading (in JCWL 8, ToC in Part 1) C.E. Luthardt's incredible quote of “The Copernican system is Truth and a triumph of the spirit!”, it was doubly sad that Ludwig Fuerbringer followed Luthardt's judgment in 1932 on the authorship of Copernicus's epitaph.  We can see how Fuerbringer's weakness, even in 1932, is partially responsible for the continued downfall of the later Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Concordia Commentary,  Joshua 

      Prof. (emeritus) Adolph L. Harstad, an ELS theologian, denies the Bible's plain, clear meaning of Joshua 10:13 in his commentary Joshua (CPH 2004 edition, p. 423): 

“When the text speaks of the sun and moon standing still, this does not necessarily imply that the author believed that the sun revolves around the earth instead of the reverse. Rather, it is using language that describes phenomena as they appear to us from our vantage point on the earth.”  – 

This assertion is an accommodation of the Bible to "Science" and is clear proof that the new (English) ELS is not the “little Norwegian” of its fathers Madson and Ylvisaker or even of J.A.O. Preus II.  Indeed J.A.O. Preus, while still at the ELS in 1949, spoke against the “science” of Copernicanism (see here) in a writing against the opponent of the ELS, the ELC.

LC-MS Today (Harrison's “here and now”)

      Schaum and Collver, in their 2019 CPH book Breath of God, Yet Work of Man, essentially trample on the orthodox Lutherans of "Lindemann's List". They say (Look Inside, p. 431): 

"If you trust your physician, the same science suggests that you can trust a physicist. Even if  [Einstein's] general relativity has ended geocentricism for good, the Bible remains true and Christ still has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature."

LCMS    —     ILC     —     LLDP     —     CTSFW
Harrison    —    Collver    —    Schaum    —    Rast

They are following the exact same reasoning as the followers of Copernicanism, that "Science" has proved the Bible to be incorrect in its account of natural history.  CTS-FW President Lawrence Rast Jr. wrote the Foreword to this book, thereby lending his name to its content.  It is offered by the LC-MS to other worldwide Lutheran groups as a teaching aid, as part of their "Lutheran Leadership Development Program" (LLDP).  Although Dr. Collver's "employment ended" in March 2019, yet his (and Schaum's) book was written while he was general secretary of the International Lutheran Council (ILC) and so this book is apparently still considered LC-MS doctrine… for worldwide Lutheranism.  It is sad that the LC-MS has dug its heels in so firmly. 

“Science” over the Bible… in the seminaries, universities
      In today's modern climate of "Science" over Scripture, a writer for Notre Dame University Press, Nicholas H. Steneck, stated in 1988 the following in his book Science and Creation in the Middle Ages in regard to a naturalist that Lindemann mentioned in Part 1, Henry of Langenstein (p. 42, emphasis mine):

“Laying bare the Creator’s design brings science squarely into focus. The revealed word of itself cannot lead to a full understanding of nature. In this regard Henry would not agree with Luther, for example, when the latter discards the “needless opinions” of the philosophers and turns “to Moses as the better teacher.” Using science and the works of scientists to help interpret Scripture is not only desirable, it is necessary… Ignorance of the way things are leaves the theologian vulnerable to the attacks and ridicules of philosophers. [JCWL: “fear of being considered stupid”] If nature and Sacred Scripture cannot be reconciled, the way is left open for the rejection of the latter’s teachings—even teachings that do not pertain strictly to nature. … No apology is needed for what follows, for unless we fully understand the workings of creation, the Creator too will fall beyond our intellectual and affective grasp.”

Steneck summarizes a position that matches the doctrinal position of the LC-MS.

Luther

Copernicus

< Lindemann's Luther, with Holy Scripture

vs. 

LC-MS replacement, Copernicus? >

May the true confessors of "Lindemann's List" be a strong testimony against today's teachers of the 
LC—MS and the ELS.

[I am planning to open my original Copernicanism series to comments after several years of restricting this.]

JCWL 8: equivocators, accommodators, naysayers – "let history speak"; Pasche's praise

      This concludes from Part 7 (Table of Contents in Part 1), an 8-part series presenting an English translation of J. C. W. Lindemann's 1873 article "Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians." — This segment was very sad for me as Lindemann documents the weak Lutherans who began to allow the truth of the Bible to be questioned, even discarded, nay, more than that, some gloried in their shame of practically ridiculing Bible truth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Excerpt from Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, vol. 8 (1873) pp. 65-74, 107-116; translation by BackToLuther; all highlighting, red text in [] square brackets, images, and hyperlinks are mine, underlining in original.

Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann, Part 8 of 8, pp. 114-116]

Now, of course, it cannot be denied that other Lutheran theologians have spoken very doubtfully and did not want to spoil it either with Copernicus or with the Bible; but these all belong to the time when people began to remove or at least hide the contradiction between false science and the Bible by twisting and interpreting, by “accommodation” and “proper explanation”. Yes, the closer to our time, the more servants of the Word are found who consider it a shame to contradict anti-God science . The light of the latter, which is of course not seen, but only boldly and brazenly claimed, has blinded them, and they now do not know where to turn, or they throw themselves into the arms of "science", especially because of progress to be part of the time and not to get into discredit with the “educated”.

Starke: equivocator

The uncertainties include e.g. Christoph Starke, who in his Synopsis puts both opinions next to one another without explicitly deciding on one. — The publishers of the Hirschberger Bible (1756 [1765 SLUB online; 1926, Fuerbringer Foreword], Ehrenfried Liebich and Dr. Joh. Fried. Burg) are very similar [German text with comments, see note (g)]. — Daniel Schneider [?; pic; DNB] appears in his Biblical Lexicon (1728) as a determined Copernican.

The newer generation of theologians has already largely absorbed the Copernican worldview as mother’s milk; and there are very few who have become so familiar with the matter in question that they can have an independent judgment. Oh, many, without their wanting or intending to, betray the sanctuary to their enemies and invite them to devastate their way into the open gate of the church.

Luthardt:
"Copernican system is Truth"

Also Prof. C. E. Luthardt says in his “Apologetic Lectures” (5th ed. 1867, p. 65) [6th edition 1868 here] [page 114-115]: 

“The Copernican system is Truth and a triumph of the spirit!”

And he does so after having recently put the words into the mouth of the enemies of Christianity: 

“Astronomy is the refutation of Christianity. The Copernican system has made the Christian worldview absolutely impossible, and the more recent discoveries have only completed this judgment.” 

Every Christian should weep when he reads what Luthardt sees in this completely baseless accusation, and when he finally has to see that this Lutheran theologian is giving up his Word of God, his Bible, in order to make a system as “truth” and as a “triumph of the Spirit” whose expert defenders have not yet provided any proof of the unmistakable correctness of it! What good does it do to defend the walls of the Church if you leave the gate open through which all of the newer anti-Biblical worldview has crept in!

Prof. Dr. v. Zezschwitz is also a Copernican; but he pretty much avoids the popular theory, feeling that it cannot be held against the Bible. However, in his Apology of Christianity (Leipzig 1866, p. 175), he says: “This honorary position of man stands and falls, it seems, with the privileged position of the small Earth over all other countless and immeasurably larger world bodies.” He too has lost the firm ground in this. While the Copernican astronomers only claim, with an appearance of truth, that the Sun and a number of planets are larger than the Earth, but that they know nothing about the size of all fixed stars; yet a doctor of sacred theology admits that the “immeasurably larger world bodies” are “countless”! How terrifying is this respect for completely unproven but boldly claimed astronomical hypotheses! [While us moderns may smile at this section, yet Lindemann is entirely correct in his point in that at his point in time of astronomical knowledge… the claim was indeed “completely unproven”! … yet a theologian would go beyond scientific knowledge in his statement… to please the scientists?]

If that can happen in the Lutheran Church, in the Church that only wants to stand on the rock of the Word that came from God's mouth, then you can’t be surprised if it doesn’t look any better for the United [United Church; “Prussion Union”, so called "Evangelical"]. [Otto von] Gerlach is a determined Copernican in his Bible work! [see his annotated Die Heilige Schrift, v. , p 17, translated text here; Gerlach also attacked Luther’s translation of Genesis 4:1 here, translated footnote 1 here] 

Dr. [Johann Heinrich] Kurtz (🔗) strives to bring Bible and Astronomy in line. [1853; English 1857 translation here (🔗); Cornell University, Andrew Dickson White’s institution, helped sponsor an online version here] For this purpose he wrote his own work, from which one can see quite clearly how futile his work is, how eternally incompatible the two are. But the willing reader rightly understands: It is about the astronomy of Copernicus, not about the real one based on observation.

In closing this essay, how imperfectly it has turned out, and how little it sufficiently serves its purpose. [Dear Lindemann, how wrong you are!!] But it was necessary to let history speak about this matter because the opinion is [page 116] widespread, as if the Lutheran theologians had before long gathered themselves together and turned to the modern worldview. As far as we know, there is no similar older work that we could have used. The present is, therefore, only a first attempt, the inadequacy of which the reader would kindly excuse, due to the limited time and resources at hand.

= = = = = = = = =  End of essay  = = = = = = = = = =

      Dear Lindemann, how wrong you are!!  Your essay is far from imperfect, it is a masterpiece in true Church History, and Walther's praise of your pamphlet in the same year, 1873, confirms how highly your name is to be held in the true Lutheran Church for today... as you weep for your Church that strayed from the Reformer and the Reformation, a Reformation that based its whole theology on the absolute truth of Holy Scripture.  – Yes, dear Lindemann, I weep with you for our dear Lutheran Church that is abandoning its heritage as the Church of the Bible. —

Lindemann and Pasche
2 great lights in OLD Missouri

      Pastor F. E. Pasche, in his book Die Bibel und Astronomie, p 116 fn 1, credits Lindemann's essay for his own listing of Lutherans (translated):

"We owe most of the above quotations to this quite excellent article by the highly gifted man of God who is strong in faith."

      I must add one more post to this series, as I have largely refrained from polemics against today's LC-MS so as to not disturb Lindemann's great essay.  I must laugh at today's teachers of the LC-MS who essentially repudiate the true Lutherans of "Lindemann's List"… in the following Postscript.