Last week, as Easter approached, many sermon-preparing preachers pondered what to do with Mark 16:9-20. They approached their trusted commentaries and found . . . a spectacular mess. The amount of misinformation that continues to circulate about these 12 verses is staggering. Here are 12 claims about Mark 16:9-20 that should not be taken at face value.
(12) “Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses.” When Bruce Metzger first made this claim in 1964 on page 226 of the first edition of The Text of the New Testament, he wrote, “Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius show no knowledge of the existence of these verses,” but by the time Metzger wrote A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for the United Bible Societies, he had removed the reference to Eusebius (that is, Eusebius of Caesarea, an important bishop in the early 300’s – more about him later). It would have been better to remove the sentence altogether, because it has misled many commentators (some of whom repeat Metzger’s statements almost word-for-word).
While there is no clear quotation of Mark 16:9-20 in Clement’s writings, there is also no clear quotation from chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 of Mark. Aside from one large and loosely quoted citation from chapter 10, Clement hardly ever used the Gospel of Mark. Clement’s testimony does not mean anything about Mark 16:9-20 that it does not mean about 12 entire chapters of Mark.
Origen, similarly, did not use the Gospel of Mark nearly as much as he used the other Gospels. In his major works, Origen quotes nothing from 3:19-4:11 (28 consecutive verses), from 5:2-5:43 (41 consecutive verses), from 8:7-8:29 (22 consecutive verses), or from 10:3-10:42 (39 consecutive verses), or Mark 1:36-3:16 (54 consecutive verses). So why, when Origen does not use Mark 16:9-20, should this indicate anything special? If Origen did not use Mark 16:9-20, that only means that Mark 16:9-20 has something in common with 33 other 12-verse segments of the Gospel of Mark.
But it is possible that in Philocalia, chapter 5, Origen alluded to Mark 16:15-18. In the course of linking together a series of Scripture-citations, Origen stated, right after alluding to Luke 10:19, “Let a man observe how the apostles who were sent by Jesus to proclaim the Gospel went everywhere, and he cannot help seeing their superhuman daring in obedience to the divine command.” While this is not a direct quotation, Origen may have been referring to the instructions to preach the gospel in Mark 16:15, and to the spread of the message everywhere in 16:20, and to the apparently daring actions described in 16:18. The thematic parallel between Luke 10:19 and Mark 16:18 renders this a real possibility.
Considering Origen’s general tendency to neglect the Gospel of Mark, and considering that it is difficult to refute the idea that Origen alluded to Mark 16:15-20 in Philocalia, his testimony should be considered neutral.
Since the names of Clement and Origen were thrown into the textual apparatus of both the Novum Testamentum Graece and the Greek New Testament of the United Bible Societies, as if they clearly testified against Mark 16:9-20, generations of commentators have misrepresented their non-testimony as if it is some sort of thunderous declaration. In 2007, author Stephen Miller was spreading the completely false claim (in Barbour Publishing’s The Complete Guide to the Bible) that Clement of Alexandria had written a commentary in which he confirmed that Mark ends at 16:8.
(11) “Mark 16:9-20 is omitted by important Ethiopic codices.” This claim can still be found in influential commentaries and apologetics-handbooks. It still circulates on page 322 of the fourth edition of The Text of the New Testament, the work of Metzger (now deceased) and his student Bart Ehrman. The late Eugene Nida also was guilty of spreading this claim. However, in 1980, Metzger demonstrated in a detailed essay (published as chapter 9 in a volume of New Testament Tools and Studies) thatthe statement is false. Metzger concluded that the claim was based on a mistake made by researchers in the 1800’s regarding three Ethiopic manuscripts – all three of which really contain the passage. To repeat: all known undamaged Ethiopic manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark include 16:9-20.
Furthermore, research on the Ethiopic version has not stood still since 1980: the Garima Gospels, an Ethiopic manuscript which was previously thought to have been written around A.D. 1000, was tested via carbon-dating, and its production-date was reassigned to 430-540. The Garima Gospels contains Mark 16:9-20 immediately after 16:8.
(10) “Some early manuscripts add the Freer Logion between verses 14 and 15.” This claim used to be part of a footnote in the English Standard Version, and to this day, Tyndale House Publishers are spreading this claim in a footnote in the New Living Translation. During Jerome’s lifetime (in the late 300’s and early 400’s), this claim was true; Jerome reported that the Freer Logion appeared in the Gospel of Mark after 16:14 “especially in Greek codices.” However, the number of manuscripts that exist today and which are known to contain this interpolation is exactly one: Codex Washingtoniensis, which resides at the Smithsonian Institution.
(9)“The Freer Logion is‘another ending’to the Gospel of Mark.”James Tabor, a professor at UNC Charlotte, has written (on page 231 of his 2006 book The Jesus Dynasty) that “Two other “made-up” endings were later put into circulation, as shorter alternatives to this longer traditional ending.” Tabor thus errs in two ways: first, the Shorter Ending was created to round off the otherwise abrupt ending at 16:8, not with an awareness of 16:9-20. Second, the Freer Logion is not “another ending.” It is an interpolation which never stood, and could not stand, as an ending by itself.
A footnote in the NET Bible correctly locates the Freer Logion “between vv. 14 and 15” but erroneously describes it as “a different shorter ending.” The lateRobert Grant wrote that Codex W “contains a different ending entirely.” Although this claim is easy to demolish by consulting Codex W, several preachers and commentators (and Bible footnote-writers!) continue to echo this legend of “various endings,” as if verses 9-20 face a host of competitors besides the Shorter Ending.
|MS 274, with Mark 16:6-15 in the text,|
and the Shorter Ending in the lower margin,
with explanations of themeta-text.
(8) “Some manuscripts have the Shorter Ending after Mark 16:8, and some have verses 9-20 after 16:8.” This is technically true, but the term “some” is so vague that it deceives the reader. The number of Greek manuscripts that contain the Shorter Ending in any way at all is six. (A footnote in the NET gives the false impression that the number is higher – partly by listing the same manuscript twice, as 083 and as 0112.) The number of Greek manuscripts in which 16:8 is followed by 16:9 is over 1,640. (In the medieval manuscript 274, the Shorter Ending is written in the lower margin, linked by asterisks to 16:8, which is followed in the text by 16:9 which begins on the same line on which 16:8 ends.)
Of the five Greek manuscripts in which the Shorter Ending is between 16:8 and 16:9, Codex L and 083 have a note preceding 16:9 (to the effect of, “In other copies, the following material appears after ‘for they were afraid’”) which is also found in the Greek-Sahidic lectionary 1602. This establishes this arrangement of the text as a localized Egyptian treatment – that is, four of the Greek manuscripts with the Shorter Ending between 16:8 and 16:9 display a distinctly Egyptian form of the text, indicating that the Shorter Ending originated in Egypt (which suggests, in turn, that only in Egypt did the text of the Gospel of Mark lack verses 9-20 in the early centuries in which the Gospel of Mark was circulated).
(7) “Codex Sigma does not contain Mark 16:9-20.”Codex Σ, also known as Codex 042 and as the Rossano Gospels, is an important Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark. It was probably made for a member of the royal family of the Byzantine Empire. It is one of the earliest illustrated manuscripts of the Gospels in existence. Bruce Metzger, in his influential book, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography, stated that Codex Σ does not contain the text of the Gospel of Mark after 14:14. However, that error is the direct descendant of a typographical error that appeared in the third edition of F. H. A. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, in which on page 158, the Roman numerals “xvi” (that is, 16) were erroneously mixed up and “xiv” (14) was printed instead. (William Sanday mentioned this typographical error in 1885, in an article in Studia Biblica, but apparently this was not noticed by Metzger.)
Because mistakes of this sort have not been corrected, the claim that “Mark 16:9-20 is contained only in later manuscripts” has been allowed to circulate for over 20 years in a footnote in Eugene Peterson’s The Message. Such a claim is succinctly refuted by a consultation of the early manuscripts Alexandrinus, Bezae, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Washingtoniensis.
(6) “Mark 16:9-20 is absent from the Old Latin manuscripts.” This claim has been spread by commentators such as James Edwards, and by apologists such as Ron Rhodes. In the real world, however, only one Old Latin manuscript containing its original pages of Mark 16 does not follow Mark 16:8 with 16:9: Codex Bobbiensis, the worst-copied manuscript of the Gospels ever made in any language. In Mark 16, the copyist of Mark 16 added an interpolation between verses 3 and 4, and removed part of verse 8, before adding the Shorter Ending, but with several bad mistakes (such as writing “puero” (“child”) instead of “Petro” (Peter), and writing “from the east, even unto the east”). (The copyist of Codex Bobbiensis seems to have lacked a basic familiarity with the contents of his exemplar; even in Matthew 6:9, he mangled the Latin phrase for “Thy kingdom come.”)
Mark 16:9-20, or part of it (sometimes parts are lost due to incidental damage), is included in the Old Latin copies Corbeiensis (ff2, from the 400’s – although most of verses 15-18 have been extensively damaged), and the combined fragmentsn and o (from the 400’s) together contain the passage up through verse 13, and then the rest, respectively. In addition, some manuscripts of the Vulgate contain Old Latin chapter-summaries which originated as features of Old Latin manuscripts; the final entry in these chapter-summaries (which have several forms) fits the contents of Mark 16:9-20.
The Latin manuscripts Aureus (aur, 600’s/700’s), Colbertinus (c, made in the 1200’s, but unquestionably perpetuating an early non-Vulgate text after chapter 6), Rhedigerianus (600’s/700’s), and Monacensis (q, from the 500’s or 600’s) also include Mark 16:9-20.
(5)“The Vulgate and the Peshitta end the text of Mark at 16:8.” This false claim was promoted by John MacArthur in a sermon he preached on
(4)“Manyancient manuscripts contain scribal notes to indicate that verses 9-20 wereregarded as a spurious addition.”Thevague and imprecise claim byMetzgerthat “Not a few manuscripts whichcontain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it”has been stretched and warped almost beyond recognition by other commentatorswhose research about this passage consisted mainly of reading Metzger’sA Textual Commentary on the GreekNew Testament.
Outof over 1,640 Greek manuscripts of Mark, about 60 contain theCatena Marcumin one form or another in theirmargins. This collection of patristic comments usually includes both acomment by Eusebius of Caesarea, and a response by Victor of Antioch (afifth-century author who is sometimes credited with the compilation of thecatena/commentary. These comments, however, are really only 60repetitions of two patristic comments.
Fourteen Greekmanuscripts are known to have special notes about Mark 16:9-20. (That’s 14 out of over 1,640 manuscripts –less than 1%, contrary to the impression you might have gotten from Craig Evansor N. T. Wright.) While, obviously, anymanuscripts mentioned in another manuscript must be older than the manuscriptthat mentions them, none of the notes specify that “the older manuscripts” lackthe passage. Three of these manuscripts(20, 215, and 300) even share a note which says, regarding the end of 16:8,“The text from here to the end is not in some copies. But inthe ancient ones, it all appears intact.”Thus instead of conveying scribal doubt, this note emphasizes thepresence of the passage in ancient copies.
Fivemanuscripts (1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582) share a note which says, before16:9, “In some of the copies, the Gospel concludes here, and EusebiusPamphili’s Canons also stop here. But in many, this [i.e., verses 9-20] alsoappears.” Again, the intention of thenote-writer appears to have been to defend the acceptance of these 12 verses,rather than to draw them into doubt.Another group of five manuscripts (15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210) sharesthe same note, but without the reference to the Eusebian Canons. The wording of the note is so similar thatthese ten manuscripts cannot constitute independent witnesses; these notes descendfrom a common source, and after the Eusebian Sections were expanded, the partabout the Eusebian Canons was removed.Lastly, a note in minuscule 199 (from the 1100’s) statessuccinctly, “In some of the copies, this [i.e., verses 9-20] is not present,but the text stops here” (that is, at the end of 16:8).
The testimony of the 14 manuscriptswith special notes about Mark 16:9-20 (mainly of an affirming nature) boilsdown to two small groups: one thatshares the “Jerusalem Colophon,” and one that consists of members of the family-1cluster of manuscripts.
(3) “In manymanuscripts of Mark without notes, the passage is marked with asterisks orobeli to convey scribal doubt about its legitimacy.” Thisclaim, considering that it is completely untrue, has been circulated withremarkable zeal by commentators. Thereare some copies (such as minuscule 138) that feature an asterisk (or a similarsymbol) which refers to reader to a comment in the margin (usually to part ofthe Catena Marcum). And there are some copies which featurelectionary-related marks or rubrics between Mark 16:8 and 6:9. But there are no manuscripts which simply containasterisks or obeli alongside Mark 16:9-20 to convey scribal doubt.
|Asterisks in MS 264 -- at Mk. 16:9,|
but also at Mk. 11:12 and 14:12.
In 2007, Daniel Wallace identified five manuscripts inwhich, he asserted, a scribe placed an asterisk to convey doubt about thepassage: 138, 264, 1221, 2346, and2812. However, 138, 2346, and 2812 areamong the manuscripts with the CatenaMarcum; they have marks at the beginning of 16:9, but these marks serve thesame purpose as footnote-numbers, to notify the reader of the existence of anote about the passage further down the page (or on a following page).
Minuscule264 has an asterisk alongside Mark 16:9, but this has no text-criticalsignificance; the same symbol occurs in 264 alongside Mark 11:12, and 14:12,and elsewhere; it is part of the lectionary-apparatus.
Similarly,minuscule 1221 has lozenge-dots – four dots arranged in a north-south-east-westpattern – between Mark 16:8 and 16:9,but the same symbol appears in 1221 after Mark 2:12, halfway through Mark 5:24,and at Mark 6:7. In Luke, it appears atthe beginning of 1:26, at the end of 1:56, and after 2:40. These symbols were added for the convenienceof a lector and have no text-critical significance.
Minuscule 137, another manuscript with the CatenaMarcum in its margins, is sometimes also mentioned in the list ofmanuscripts alleged to have asterisks accompanying Mark 16:9-20. Good digital images of this manuscript wererecently made available at the Vatican Library, and they show that the symbolbetween 16:8 and 16:9 is a simple superscripted red cross-mark (“+”), conveyingthat a note in the catena pertains to this section – and a corresponding redcross-mark appears, as expected, two pages later, at the foot of the page,accompanying the pertinent portion of the CatenaMarcum.
(2) “Eusebius andJerome state that these 12 verses were absent from all Greek copies known tothem.” The distorted claim made by Ben Witherington
At the outset of the first chapter of Ad Marinum, Eusebiustackles Marinus’ question about how Matthew’s account of the timing of Christ’sresurrection can be harmonized with Mark’s account. Readers may be surprisedto learn the details of Eusebius’ reply.He tells Marinus that the question may be dealt with in two ways. Someone might render the question superfluousby rejecting Mark 16:9-20 on the grounds that the passage in Mark is not foundin all manuscripts, or is not in the accurate copies, or is only in a fewcopies, or is only in some copies. Butsomeone else, finding both passages in the text of his Gospels, and consideringit unfitting for a faithful and pious person to pick and choose between theaccounts, would accept both passages, and read Mark 16:9 with a pause, orcomma, after “Having risen,” so as to express the understanding that thesentence describes the time at which Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, ratherthan the time of His resurrection.
Eusebiuspromotes the second option, rather than the first one. In the course of answering Marinus’ secondquestion, Eusebius mentioned that “It is stated in Mark, according to somecopies,” that Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene. And while answering Marinus’ third question,Eusebius stated “According to Mark, He had cast out seven demons” from MaryMagdalene.”
Eusebiusthus quoted Mark 16:9 three times – which is hardly how one treats a passagethat one rejects. But how should weunderstand what he says about the absence of Mark 16:9-20 in the accuratemanuscripts, and in the great majority of manuscripts? As thingsthat one might say, which is precisely how Eusebius framed them. One could only count and evaluate themanuscripts one encountered. A writer inEgypt, for example, might say that verses 9-20 were seldom found, whereassomeone in Marinus’ locale might only be familiar with manuscripts thatincluded the passage. The thing to seeis that Eusebius did not frame this as if it was his own personal observation;neither he nor anyone else in the early 300’s had the ability to survey all thelibraries in all the churches following the disruptions that were part of theDiocletian persecution in the early 300’s.If Mark 16:9-20 had been in only a few manuscripts known to Eusebius,and Eusebius had regarded those few manuscripts as inaccurate, he would havehad no reason to offer Marinus any other option besides the first one.
Eusebiusprobably changed his mind on this subject when he made the Eusebian Canons and Sections, inasmuch as the already-mentioned annotation in the family-1 clusterof manuscripts says that Eusebius did not include this passage in thecanon-tables. But when he wrote Ad Marinum, Eusebius plainly advisedMarinus to retain the passage.
Andwhat about Jerome? Jerome included Mark16:9-20 in the Vulgate Gospels in 383, and in 417, in Against the Pelagians, he cited Mark 16:14 as he explained where hehad seen the Freer Logion “especially in Greek copies,” taking for granted thathis readers would recognize Mark 16:14.At no point did Jerome ever suggest that he had included Mark 16:9-20because of pressure to do so. So how, ata time when numerous other patristic writers were openly utilizing Mark16:9-20, could Jerome possibly say, as he says in his lengthy Epistle to Hedibia, that Mark 16:9-20 ismissing from almost all copies, particularly the Greek ones?
Theanswer is simple: Hedibia had askedJerome to explain the differences in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’resurrection and post-resurrection appearances, and Jerome, in response, ratherthan go through the trouble of writing an original reply, made a loose abridgedtranslation of portions of Ad Marinum. It is in that part of Jerome’s Epistle to Hedibia that the pertinentstatement is embedded.
AsDavid Parker has observed, Jerome’s Epistleto Hedibia “is simply a translation with some slight changes of whatEusebius had written.” To restate: in this part of Epistle to Hedibia, we are not reading a spontaneous comment byJerome; we are reading Jerome’s loose Latin translation of Eusebius’statements, complete with the opening line that there are two ways to handlethe question, and the concluding recommendation to retain the passage and toread Mark 16:9 with a pause after “Having risen.”
(1) “The earliest andmost reliable manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20.” This is veryfar from the whole truth. In two (andonly two) Greek manuscripts from the 300’s, the text of Mark ends at the end of16:8. But in one of them, Codex Vaticanus, the copyist left blank space after 16:8 – including an entire blankcolumn – as if the passage was absent from his exemplar, but he recollected itfrom some other manuscript that was unavailable to him. And in the other one, Codex Sinaiticus, fourpages that were produced by the main copyist were replaced by pages which hissupervisor wrote; the text of Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 was not written by the samecopyist who wrote the surrounding pages.In addition, the person who wrote the text on these four pages made a special effort to avoid leaving a blank column – a step which implies that hewas aware of a way to conclude the Gospel of Mark other than at 16:8.
If wededuce (in agreement with J. Rendel Harris, T. C. Skeat, and other researchers) thatSinaiticus was made at Caesarea, and if we also notice that when Eusebius ofCaesarea commented about the ending of Mark, he displayed no awareness of theShorter Ending (even when the subject invited and even demanded mention of theShorter Ending, if it had been known), we may conclude that the alternativetext in the minds of the copyists of both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, when theyproduced the anomalous features at the end of Mark in their manuscripts, was verses 9-20.
Butanother factor should also be mentioned whenever the earliest manuscripts arementioned: the relevant patristicevidence that supports the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, which pre-dates Vaticanusand Sinaiticus by over a century. In the100’s, Justin Martyr (160, in First Apologych. 45), and the author of Epistula Apostolorum (c. 150/180), and Tatian (172, in his Diatessaron), and Irenaeus (c. 184, in Book 3, chapter 10 of Against Heresies) all utilized materialfrom Mark 16:9-20 in one way or another.Irenaeus quoted 16:19, specifying that he was quoting from near the endof Mark’s Gospel.
Grantingthat footnotes in Bibles must be brief, is it too much to ask that when twomanuscripts from the 300’s are mentioned in a note about Mark 16:9-20, two orthree patristic writers from the 100’s should be also be mentioned?
Summingup: when you read a Bible-footnote aboutthe ending of Mark, or a sermon-transcript, or a commentary orapologetics-handbook or blog, and notice that something is amiss, I encourageyou to contact the publisher and the author and inform them about the relevantdata. After 100 or 200 people point outthe mistake, they might do something about it, if they are not too busy.
She comes to Him and holds fast; John says she "clings" to Him. "Cling" is from the Greek root word hapto and means to bind together. In chemistry, it means to bind molecules together. Mary doesn't just cling to Jesus, she holds so tightly she seems intent on never letting go.What is the message of Mark 16? ›
This shows us that when Jesus invites us He wants to reveal Himself to us. “He is going before you into Galilee, there you shall see Him” was the message. The main object was to see Him, for Jesus to reveal Himself to His people.Why does Mark end so abruptly? ›
Some scholars argue that Mark never intended to end so abruptly: either he planned another ending that was never written, or the original ending has been lost.Why did Matthew edit Mark's gospel? ›
Matthew's Treatment of Mark
Fourthly, Matthew often edited the Marcan texts he did retain either to remove offence or to correct unpalatable theological features in Mark's account.
So what does it look like to lay up treasures in heaven? It means believing God's promises and identifying with God's people despite the sure affliction that will follow (Hebrews 10:32-34). God is faithful to his promises and what he promises his people—salvation, life and inheritance—is eternal and incorruptible.What does it mean that God will wipe away all tears? ›
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes..."
This phrase invokes a deeply personal and intimate image. It isn't just an abstract idea of God ending suffering; it's a loving Father tenderly comforting His child. It's God Himself reaching out to each one of us, wiping away our tears, soothing our sorrow.
Some thoughts on this scripture
Faith grows in a trust that God is always near, though it may not seem so. It is sometimes a dark love; and love in the darkness is what brings faith to life. Mary is a witness for the disciples but they 'who been with him' thought they knew better and would not believe her.
In summary, Mark's Gospel is a narrative proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, whose death and resurrection paid the penalty for our sins and achieved victory over Satan, sin, and death.What happens in Mark 16 short summary? ›
Mark 16 revolves around the resurrection of Christ. It is the final chapter of the gospel of Mark and therefore summarizes the entire book of Mark. Two events dominate this chapter. Jesus' rising from the dead and the reactions that He received from the people who knew and saw Him.What is the only sin that Cannot be forgiven? ›
One eternal or unforgivable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit), also known as the sin unto death, is specified in several passages of the Synoptic Gospels, including Mark 3:28–29, Matthew 12:31–32, and Luke 12:10, as well as other New Testament passages including Hebrews 6:4–6, Hebrews 10:26–31, and 1 John 5:16.
One of the peculiar features of Mark's gospel in its presentation of Jesus is that, when Jesus teaches he often actually conceals the significance of his own words from the the popular audiences, and directs it only to his own disciples. Everyone will recognize that Jesus teaches in parables.What makes Mark different from the other gospels? ›
Unlike the other three Gospels, Mark is not concerned with details, but centers on one's personal choice to act. Ultimately, Mark concludes with an implicit call to action. This Gospel tells a powerful story with a challenge that essentially asks believers what they will do with what they now know.What did Mark's gospel focus on? ›
Mark's Gospel stresses the deeds, strength, and determination of Jesus in overcoming evil forces and defying the power of imperial Rome. Mark also emphasizes the Passion, predicting it as early as chapter 8 and devoting the final third of his Gospel (11–16) to the last week of Jesus' life.What does Q mean in the Bible? ›
The answer appears to be that Matthew and Luke each had two sources in common: the Gospel of Mark and another gospel, now lost, a collection of sayings known only as Q. Q stands for "Quelle," the German word for source.What is one difference between Matthew and Mark's gospel? ›
Mark mainly spoke about how Jesus was the suffering son of God, like Matthew does, but Matthew also introduces how Jesus is like the new Moses, coming to set his people free from their bondage, giving them new teachings and laws.What is the meaning of Jesus bending down and washed the feet of humankind? ›
In essence, he has washed their feet as an example for them to follow. If their Lord and Master can serve them by stooping low to wash their feet, then surely they can serve one another in any way. The first lesson Jesus has taught the church, therefore, is to humbly, lovingly, and sacrificially serve other people.What is the meaning of whoever finds his life will lose it and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it? ›
The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death." We are all sinners, so death will come. If we spend our efforts trying to preserve this earthly life, we still will lose it. On the other hand, "whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Jesus does not mean to lose one's life by dying, but to give it to Him.What does it pleased the Lord to bruise him mean? ›
The phrase “it pleased the Lord to bruise him” in verse 10 means that Heavenly Father was pleased that Jesus Christ willingly offered Himself as a sacrifice for others' sins (see 3 Nephi 11:7, 11; John 3:16).What does it mean for God to fill your cup? ›
Filling your cup means replenishing your spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical reserves. It means stopping and recharging your batteries. It means giving yourself permission to rest and be spiritually refreshed. Yet, it's easy to overlook and neglect our need to recharge.