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

[2025-04-13: updated several links; 2024-09-27: updated links to Triglotta;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 2005-06 2005	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 84	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	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	606 636	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	339 384	359
Mark 16:16	AC IX: 1-2 Baptism: “Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation”		47	35 61 (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	222 248	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	280 307	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	339 365	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	358 365	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	423 449	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	425 451	459
	LC Baptism 31: “Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”		739	426 452	460
	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”		1075	608 638	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	586 616	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 [Internet Archive]).  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:  = = = = = = =

Schrift 12: #5: No contradictions; 6. Bound to every letter; Arndt falters; Voelz ‘doubts’

[2019-02-18: added missing underlining; 2019-01-20: modified ref. to LW 26;2019-01-08: correct sentence below with red text.]
      This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an English translation of C.F.W. Walther's major essay on  the Inspiration of Holy Scripture in the Missouri Synod's chief theological journal, Lehre und Wehre. —  Walther delineates practically all the various objections to Inspiration.  Another favorite one is that the Bible contradicts itself', but we find Luther calling out a former fellow, and very intelligent, reformer on this sometimes subtle error. Then the importance of even the letter and "tittle" of Scripture are given their due – "it all matters". (All quotes are selections made by Walther from Martin Luther's writings. If quotes available in Am. Ed. of Luther's Works, they were used – see notes in [ ].)

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

Translation by BackToLuther; all highlighted text, text in square brackets and in red font are my additions. Underlining follows Walther.
(continued from Part 11)

Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32, March, p. 65-66 "Foreword" by C.F.W. Walther

V. The Scripture is nowhere in contradiction with itself.

“What deceived the good Oecolampadius is the fact that scriptural texts which are contradictory must be reconciled, and one passage must receive an interpretation which will accord with another; for it is certain that the Scriptures cannot be at variance with themselves. But he did not notice and consider that he would be the one who alleged this variance in the Scriptures and who ought to prove it. He simply asserted it and proclaimed it as if it were already sealed and delivered. This is where he stumbled and fell. If they would stop and think, however, and take care to speak nothing but God’s words, as St. Peter teaches [1 Pet. 4:11], and it they would leave their own assertions and assumptions at home, they would not create so much misfortune. This saying, ‘The Scriptures are not self-contradictory,’ would not have misled Oecolampadius, for it is grounded in God’s Word that God does not lie nor does his Word deceive.” (“That These Words of Christ, 'This is My Body' Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics,". XX, 994. f., § 82-83 [StL 20, 798 § 82-83; LW 37, 50-51]) [see also: 1) McLaughlin’s Inspiration essay "good man Oecolampadius"; 2) Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 56-7] (page 66)

“You may scream antagonistically all you want, that the Scripture is contrary to itself, that righteousness is attributed to faith in one place, and to works in the other. Albeit it is impossible that Scripture should be against itself; it is only, however, that the ignorant, coarse, and stubborn hypocrites see it so.” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians., 1535. VIII, 2140, § 285 [StL 9, 356 § 285 ; LW 26, but alternate text used by Jaroslav Pelikan ~ p. 266-7! Alternate passage see LW 26:295 ; BTL translation, on Gal. 3:10])  [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57]  

“I myself have a hearty dislike of myself and hate myself because I know that everything that the Scripture says is true, except that there can be nothing greater, nothing more important, nothing more pleasurable, nothing joyous, and that should make me drunk in the highest joy; because I see that Holy Scripture agrees in all parts and throughout and in this way speaks one and the same thing so that one cannot doubt in the least as to the truth and certainty of so great a matter, etc.” (Short Exposition on the Prophet Isaiah,  1532. VI , 268, § 188 [StL 6, 177,§ 188; NOT in LW 16, different text]) [see also Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 57, partial translation]

“There are many passages in Holy Scripture that are contradictory according to the letters; but when that which motivates them is pointed out, everything is all right.”, 1539. XVI, 2668, § 75 [StL 16, 2185, § 75; LW 41, 54) [see also: 1) McLaughlin’s Inspiration essay "in conflict with each other"; 2) Confessional Lutheran 1960 p 56-7]

“We  have sufficiently founded the article of our faith in Scripture — hold on to it, and let not yourself be turned from it with glosses and interpretations according to reason, whether it rhymes or not, but if one wants to smear it with something different, from reason and your thoughts, so say: Here I have the bare Word of God and my faith, there will I remain, and not any further think, ask, or hear, nor brainstorm how this or that is to rhyme, nor hear you, whether you are similarly to bring forth another contrary text or sayings out of your head, and slobber on it with your drool, for it will not be against itself in some article of faith, whether it is against itself in your head and does not rhyme.” (Sermon on the Christian Armor and Weapons, 1532. IX, 452, § 34 [StL 9, 828 § 34; NOT in LW; not in Lenker v. III])

VI. Infinitely much depends on each letter and tittle of Scripture, and the whole Church is bound to all of them.

“By one letter, yes, by a tittle of Scripture, there is worth more than heaven and earth. Therefore we cannot suffer that one wants to depart from them also in this, even in the least thing.” (Detailed Exposition of Galatians, dated 1535. VIII, 2661, § 126 [StL 9, 650, § 126; LW 27, 41 - slightly different text.)

“God forbid that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole church universal is not bound to follow and keep!” 1)  (The Babylonian Captivity of the  Church, 1520. XIX, 22 § 22, [StL 19, 20; LW 36, 25])

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

1) Far be it, far be it, that any dot in the whole of Paul that the entire universal Church is not bound to follow and keep. (Opp. lat. varii argumenti etc. Francofurti ad M. 1868. Vol. 5, 27.) [Latin text]

= = = = = = = = = =   continued in Part 13   = = = = = = = = = = =

From a changing LC-MS (Arndt 1926)...

      A well known book by Prof. William Arndt († 1957) addressed the "no contradictions" teaching.  In 1926 he authored Does the Bible Contradict Itself?: A Discussion of Alleged Contradictions in the Bible (HathiTrust full view, CPH latest edition).  I remember this book well as I was coming back to my Christian faith in the 1990s.  It helped me to believe the Bible.  However since that time, I discovered where Arndt later became willing to compromise his own earlier stand by joining with other Lutherans who were not firm in defending all aspects of Inspiration.  And a closer reading of Arndt's book reveals some weakness. On page VI (Hathi), after quoting 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, John 10:35,  Prof. Arndt adds:

"These declarations must be true, the Christian says to himself, because they are contained in the life-giving revelation of God. He that sent His only Son to die for us surely is not leading us astray ...."

While these are pious sounding statements, yet they go beyond just resting on "Thus saith the Lord", or "It is written".   They weaken the authority of Scripture itself as they begin to rely on reasoning.  Christ rebuffed Satan with his statement "It is written..." (Matt. 4:10). On the road to Emmaus, Christ taught about Himself from "Moses and the prophets", from "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27) Several of Arndt's students referred to him as their justification for denials of various aspects of Inspiration. Now my weak faith cannot stand equivocation on this doctrine and I must stay with Luther, Walther and Pieper – teachers who never wavered in the least. 

... to a dying LC-MS (Dr. Voelz 2019).

      Today, the most prominent teacher of "exegesis" in the LC-MS, Prof. Dr. James Voelz of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, writes (What Does This Mean?, p. 243, emphases mine)

“...we must affirm that ‘problems of historical accuracy, inner consistency of stories/pericopes, compatibility of parallel accounts, etc., are not easily resolved, though the narratives, stories, and accounts are the very word of a perfect God.’ Real difficulties exist and those who have doubts and uncertainties are not simply being obstinate or godless.”

Prof. Voelz may call doubters “not simply being obstinate or godless", but Luther, above, calls them "ignorant, coarse, and stubborn hypocrites”.  Isn't Prof. Voelz saying that he has "doubts and uncertainties"?... that he neither believes nor teaches nor confesses "Inerrancy" as Martin Luther clearly taught?

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

      Walther's "Foreword" to the 1886 Lehre und Wehre has not gone unnoticed by other theologians.  Franz Pieper quoted it in his Christian Dogmatics.  Robert Preus quoted from it.  The titles of the theses of this essay were translated by Prof. Thomas Manteufel (em.) and published in an essay he presented in 2004.  Manteufel's essay is much too important to continue without a wider availability.  So I am about to do something (perhaps recklessly) about that in a related "excursus" ... in the next post. —  Then this series will continue with Part 13.