Good morning,

The domain name for the pending site has been registered, and should be easy to remember. It is www.pleaseconsider.au

Blessings,

Ian

Hello, all.

If anyone would like pre-publication versions of the Please Consider essays, you can request PDF copies via email at didaktikon@gmail.com The essays are written in a way that promotes understanding. Consequently, they are intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive, but they intentionally address Revivalist misunderstandings and errors, head-on.

The following are almost complete:

1. Pentecost (Acts 1 & 2)

2. Acts 2:38

3. Baptism

4. The Gospel

5. Mark 16

6. Nicodemus' misunderstanding (John 3)

7. Speaking in tongues

The following are underway:

1. What is the church? 

2. Prayer: A user's guide

3. The British-Israel myth

4. What is salvation?

5. How does grace work?

6. Spiritual gifts: trinkets or treasures?

7. Nicodemus, the Centurion

8. The Philippian Gaoler

9. Salvation in Samaria

10. Effusion at Ephesus

11. How to read the Bible: A user's guide

12. Jesus, the Messiah-King

13. The person of the Holy Spirit

14. The trinity: what it is, and why it's important
    

Blessings,

Ian

Hello, All.

I thought it might be good to share one of the pending Please Consider essays here, to provide an example of how they are structured. To this end, I've included the one titled, The British Israel Myth.

Blessings,

Ian

The British-Israel Myth

‘James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.’[1]

The Revival Centres and Fellowship teaches the Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples are the literal descendants of the northern Kingdom of Israel, which the Assyrians overthrew around 720 BC, and then dispersed throughout their empire. The story goes these exiles migrated north and west over the following centuries, eventually settling in lands directly linked to the British Commonwealth and the United States of America. These modern nations are, therefore, believed to be the inheritors of God’s covenant promise to Abraham, Jacob and David, and so will play a critical role in ushering in the Kingdom of God.[2]  

The central importance of the so-called British-Israel message to biblical interpretation in the Revival Centres and Fellowship is immense, and in many respects, is the glue that binds Revivalist doctrine together.[3] Consequently, it would be a mistake to dismiss British-Israel as being a side or secondary issue to these groups. To the contrary, it is as sacrosanct as is their shared belief concerning the importance of speaking in tongues. Consequently, if the British-Israel theory is proven false, then it follows that so too is approximately ninety percent of Revivalism’s major doctrines.

The limits of this essay

As will become clear, I contend the British-Israel myth is false; furthermore, that it can be readily disproven biblically, historically, philologically, and genetically. There are any number of published academic works that do just that, and which I commend to those whose interest in the subject goes beyond the superficial.[4]

Due to its purpose, this essay must necessarily be brief, and so is intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive. My aim is to focus on providing a digested summary of critical points that I have personally found conclusive. I will not attempt to refute each and every claim promoted by adherents of the British-Israel myth, as to do so would require the publishing of a rather large book. 

There are three broad issues that coalesce around the subject.

The first relates to the belief that the ten tribes of Israel were lost to history following the Assyrian invasion of the Northern Kingdom. The second issue has to do with the belief that the Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples are physically descended from these supposedly ten lost tribes of Israel. The third, and to my mind the most important issue, has to do with how the Bible presents the subject of Israel, especially in the New Testament. I will limit myself to considering each of these features in brief compass, with an intentional emphasis towards the last of these considerations. But first, a suggestive quote:

The (British-Israel) theory that the British people is ultimately descended from the ten Israelite tribes which were taken captive into Assyria c.721 BC, and thereafter wholly disappeared from Hebrew history. It was often found in conjunction with pronounced imperialist views; and though the numbers and influence of those who defend it are small, they often hold to it with a persistence and enthusiasm which refuse to give a dispassionate consideration to objections urged against it. The theory meets with no support from serious ethnologists or archaeologists.[5]

British-Israel and the Revival Centres and Fellowship 

Lloyd Longfield and Noel Hollins were introduced to British-Israel mythology by Thomas Foster, who was then a pastor in the National Revival Crusade.[6] Foster had previously served as a YMCA representative with the 1^st Australian Armoured Division during the Second World War, and prior to enlisting was affiliated with the World British-Israel Federation. During the pre-war years he was active in proselytizing their message in Pentecostal churches across Victoria, a message that included not only the ‘national identity’ doctrine, but also the historicist approach to the interpretation of biblical books such as Daniel and Revelation.[7]

A defining aspect of the British-Israel myth is the strict demarcation between the ten tribes of Israel (i.e. the ‘Israelites’), and the two tribes of Judah (i.e. the ‘Jews’). We shall consider how the Bible addresses this issue shortly.

Are the tribes of Israel lost?

With the Assyrian conquest, and the forced removal of a significant number of Israelites from Palestine in 720/721 BC, the Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist. The exiles were assimilated into Assyrian society, and from there into related sub-cultures spread throughout the Near East.[8] In this limited, or national sense, a case can be made that the tribes were lost. However, this assertion must be carefully nuanced.

To begin with, the northern Kingdom of Israel was not emptied by the invasion; it was largely the elites whom Tiglath-Pileser III, and Shalmaneser V deported. Next, even in exile many Israelites retained their cultural identity. It is for this reason the Jewish Diaspora at the time of Christ, per Peter’s Pentecost discourse, included ‘Medes and Elamites, residents of Mesopotamia’.[9] These were former territories of the Assyrian Empire.

From their return under Cyrus around 530 BC, Jews accepted the Samaritans were descended from the northern Kingdom of Israel. However, they were shunned for being a mixed race, the result of intermarrying between the people of the land who remained through the Assyrian predation, and the immigrants the Assyrians subsequently resettled into northern Palestine. Historically the Samaritans referred to themselves as בני ישראל (bene Israel, or ‘sons of Israel’), and have scrupulously maintained their genealogies to the present day.[10] Consequently, it would be incorrect to state the ten tribes of Israel were categorically lost.

Are the Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples descended from Israel?

The short answer is, of course, ‘no’. Genetically, Anglo-Saxon Celtic and north western European peoples belong to Haplogroup R1b.[11] Middle Eastern populations, including Israelites, Samaritans and Jews, belong to Haplogroups J1 and J2.[12]

In 2003 the human genome was fully mapped. The next critical step was the generation of a ‘hapmap’, thereby defining ancestral haplotypes. The initial work on this project was completed in 2010, and was principally intended as a tool for isolating and addressing inherited genetic conditions through medical research.[13] While the idea of race is broadly understood as a social and cultural construct, genetic material defines who were are at a biological level. This material enables us to trace human ancestry back thousands of generations, identifying not only distinctive population groups, but also the clearly defined geographic markers and locations inhabited by the groups.

Historically, Bronze Age migrations of Germanic people occurred from the lower Rhine to Britain between 2,500 and 2,000 BC, and they eventually replaced about ninety percent of the genetic heritage of their Neolithic British predecessors.[14] Celts migrated to southern Britain from France around 1000 BC, some three hundred years before the fall of Israel to Assyria. Finally, Anglo-Saxons began arriving in Britain from the fifth century AD.[15] All share in common the R1a and R1b genetic Haplogroups. As they are not genetically Middle Eastern/semitic, the Anglo-Saxon Celtic people are clearly not descended from the so-called Lost Tribes of Israel.

Socially, Middle Eastern and semitic peoples tend towards endogamy; this includes Jews and Samaritans.[16] Consequently, as a small sub-set of humanity they exhibit very stable conformity to paternal and maternal Haplogroups when compared to the rest of us.  

Culturally, there are significant differences between European and Middle Eastern peoples. Language is widely recognised as the foundation of culture, and philologically the languages of Europe and the Middle East are completely unrelated. Every Indo-European language descends from the Proto-Indo-European spoken during the Bronze Age in the steppe regions proximal to Russia and the Ukraine. Conversely, the semitic languages branch from the altogether separate Afro-Asiatic family. Critically, semitic languages were widely spoken across the Near East during the same periods in which Indo-European languages were in use across Europe. Consequently, they are not related. The myth that European languages contain Hebrew syntax and etymologies pointing to an ancient Israelitish heritage is just that, a myth.[17]

To summarise, genetic science, history, ethnology and comparative philology all disprove the fable that Anglo-Saxon Celtic peoples are descended from Israelites.

How does the Bible present Israel?

The noun Israel (יִשְׂרָאֵל) occurs over 2,500 times in the Bible, and the semantic range is quite broad. It is so broad that the intended meaning of the word is frequently subject to change within the same passage of the same biblical book! In the list below, I have grouped the semantic range of Israel into ten primary contexts. For ease of reference, and to keep the essay to a manageable size, the summary of findings is from the Old Testament prophets alone:[18]

1.     Israel is understood as the original ancestor of the people, that is, it can connote both Jacob (e.g. Hosea 12:12), and Abraham (e.g. Isaiah 63:16).

2.     Israel is understood as the people that God delivered from Egypt (e.g. Jeremiah 32:20; Amos 3:1).

3.     Israel is understood as the alliance that predated the monarchy (e.g. Jeremiah 7).

4.     Israel is understood as a united monarchy (e.g. Jeremiah 33:17; Micah 5:2).

5.     Israel is understood as the northern part of the kingdom (e.g. Isaiah 7:1; Hosea 1:1).

6.     Israel is understood as the southern part of the kingdom (e.g. Isaiah 1:3; Jeremiah 5:15; Ezekiel 2:3). Notably, Ezekiel used ‘Israel’ one hundred and eighty-five times, and ‘Judah’ fifteen times, when refering to his audience of exiled Judeans![19]

7.     Israel is understood as the Judeans (or ‘Jews’) who were exiled to Babylon (e.g. Isaiah 40-66; Isaiah 49:6; Ezekiel 11:15; Obadiah 1:20).

8.     Israel is understood as the Judeans (or ‘Jews’) who returned from Exile during the Persian period (e.g. Ezra 2:2; Zechariah 12:1; Malachi 2:11).

9.     Israel is understood as a geographical region (e.g. Isaiah 11:16; Ezekiel 27:17).

10. Israel is understood as a future reality (e.g. Ezekiel 37:21; Zechariah 9:1; Isaiah 27:6).

Quite simply, the name Israel was not limited in the sense defended by apologists for the British-Israel myth. To the contrary, Israel was repeatedly used to describe Jews well after the division of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom into two. In many Old Testament contexts, the words Israel and Judah are treated as synonyms, which is precisely how they appear in the New Testament.

New Testament references to Israel

The essay began with a quote from the letter of James, addressed to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. James’ audience was well known to him; they were members of the Jewish diaspora, and they lived the length and breadth of the Roman Empire. They traded with, communicated with, had relationships with, and engaged in religious practices with the Jews of Palestine during the first century AD.

In the Gospel According to Matthew, Jesus and his disciples are sent, ‘…only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’[20] This, of course, is a reference to their ministry among the Jews. It was only after his glorification, and their subsequent Spirit empowerment at Pentecost, that Jesus directed his apostles to evangelise beyond this single people group (see PENTECOST).[21]

Luke left us the following record concerning Paul’s address to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, ‘Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said: ‘Fellow Israelites and you Gentiles who worship God, listen to me!’[22] Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, and a Jew. Despite this, he claimed the name Israelite for himself and his Jewish companions.

In his letter to the Church at Rome, notably chapters nine through eleven, Paul explicated the promises that God made to the people of Israel were to be fulfilled in the mixed company that is the Christian church. Luke also intimated as much in his record of Peter’s speech to the Jews at Pentecost.[23]

All things considered, the third chapter to Paul’s letter to the church at Colossae discredits any and all perceived racial primacy or importance within God’s redemptive plan. Verse eleven:

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

A digression?

You will notice I have avoided discussing several rabbit-hole issues, including the fictitious Tea/Tamar Tephi, the similarly fictitious claim that the British Royal family traces its lineage back to King David, and the misguided belief that the Stone of Scone is Jacob’s Pillow. They are pointless digressions, each of which has been categorically disproven.[24]

Conclusion

The British-Israel myth has been conclusively disproven—biblically, historically, philologically, ethnologically, and perhaps most tellingly of all, genetically. It is a racist theory that was created to justify British colonialism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and which was revived following the Second World War when British influence in world affairs was declining.

That the Revival Centres and Fellowship continues to propagate this myth clearly demonstrates that they do not care ‘about the truth, despite the proof’.

[1] James 1:1

[2] See, e.g. E. Raymond CAPT, Abrahamic Covenant, Artisan Publishers, n.d.; M.S. Kragh, The Lost 10 Tribes of Israel in Europe, Covenant Publishing Ltd, 2024; J. Durrant, The Throne of David and the Return of Christ, Revival Centres of Australia, 1988

[3] Not only in the way they interpret the Old and New Testaments, but also their doctrines of salvation and the End Times

[4] See, e.g. T. Parfitt, The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth, Weidenfield & Nicolson, 2003; D. Baron, The History of the Ten “Lost” Tribes: Anglo-Israelism Examined, Morgan & Scot, 1915; Z. Shavitsky, The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes: A Critical Survey of Historical and Archaeological Records Relating to the People of Israel in Exile in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia up to 300 BCE, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012

[5] F. Cross and E. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3^rd. ed., Oxford University Press, 1997, p. 239

[6] D. Cooper, Flames of Revival: The continuing story of the Christian Revival Crusade celebrating Fifty Years of Pentecostal Witness, CRC National Executive, 1995 p. 62

[7] Historicism seeks to interpret prophecy and apocalyptic through the identification of concrete, historical events. As with the competing theories of futurism and preterism, historicism imposes an artificial interpretative grid atop the biblical material, one that would make no sense to the people the writings were originally directed to. Historicism reached its peak in the 19^th century—coincidentally, alongside the British-Israel myth. Both approaches to interpreting prophecy were adopted by 19^th century Millenarian sects such as the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (now the Jehovah’s Witnesses)

[8] See e.g. A. Bregman, A History of Israel, Macmillan, 2002; J. Bright, A History of Israel, Westminster John Knox Press, 2000

[9] See Acts 2:9

[10] E.g. the current Samaritan High Priest, Aabed-El Ben Asher ben Matzliach traces his family lineage 133 generations back to Aaron 

[11] Haplogroups are genetic groupings of people sharing common ancestry, and which are defined by specific DNA mutations. Haplogroups reveal deep ancestral origins and migration patterns, and act like genetic surnames to trace human history

[12] The haplogroups identify paternal heritage, which is appropriate given Hebrew tribe identification was inherited paternally

[13] See https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/hapmap of the National Human Genome Research Institute 

[14] M. Allentoft, M. Sikora, et. al., Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Nature, 522, 2015    

[15] S. Meigs and S. Lehmberg, The Peoples of the British Isles: A New History. From Prehistoric Times to 1688, 4^th ed., Oxford University Press, 2016

[16] A. Katsnelson, ‘Jews worldwide share genetic ties’, Nature, 2010

[17] See, T. Loundsbury, History of the English Language, Kessinger Publishers, 1906, pp. 1, 12-13

[18] I used the prophets given they collectively ministered to both the Northern and Southern exiles

[19] S.v. יִשְׂרָאֵל in J. Kohlenberger III and J. Swanson, The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament, Zondervan, 1998 

[20] Matthew 10:6

[21] Acts 1:8

[22] Acts 13:16; Philippians 3:5

[23] Acts 2:14-39

[24] In the Spring 2001 edition of the Crown and Commonwealth Magazine the World British-Israel Federation acknowledged Tea/Tamar Tephi was a fiction created by F.R.A. Glover in 1861. Next, the British Royal Family’s official website traces their historical lineage back to 1066. Finally, geological testing established the Stone of Scone is red Scottish sandstone with Strathclyde substrates. Sandstones from Palestine are morphologically different, being of Nubian, Kukar and Karstic types

Good afternoon, All.

I thought some might benefit from what will likely be the shortest essay to be included at Please Consider. It corrects the misguided Revival Centres and Fellowship teaching that the word 'Christian' means, 'anointed ones'. If the hierarchy of these groups can't even translate a single Greek work correctly, then how on earth can they be trusted to properly interpret the deeper and more important teachings of Scripture?! 

Blessings,

Ian 

What is a Christian? 

The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost. It started at that moment when the first disciples of Jesus received the anointing of God’s Holy Spirit. They became Christians, ‘anointed ones.’ This is precisely the meaning of the word ‘Christian.’[1]

In the opening paragraph to a small booklet written by Kevin Hollins sometime around 1975, which was recently reissued by the Revival Centres, we are assured of three things. First, that the Christian church began at Pentecost in 30 AD. Second, that the church started when the first disciples of Jesus received the anointing of the Holy Spirit (see, PENTECOST). And third, that the word Christian means anointed ones. While each of these claims is open to significant challenge (see, THE CHURCH), I will limit myself to addressing the final statement.

Definition

The Greek word Χριστιανος (Christianos, or ‘Christian’) is composed of the proper noun Χριστος (Christos, ‘anointed One’), and the adjectival termination -ιανος (-ianos, ‘follower of/belonging to’). A Christian then is not an ‘anointed one’ per Hollins’ misguided claim, but a follower of  Christ. This is so in precisely the same way that a Herodian is a follower of Herod, and a Caesarian is a follower of Caesar.[2] 

The teaching of the Revival Centres and Fellowship on this subject is unambiguously wrong.

In common with all Revivalist pastors, Kevin Hollins had neither first-hand knowledge of, nor any training in the Greek language. He clearly had no understanding of general linguistics either, and given his book was reissued unaltered in 2025, this situation has not changed for the better among the current crop of Revival Centres leaders. 

In the interest of making this essay slightly longer than the single sentence needed to refute this definitional error, and with the aim of providing a small measure of important historical context, I will briefly address how the term ‘Christian’ was used and understood during the first century AD.

New Testament application

Christianos appears just three times in the New Testament.[3] In Acts 11:26 Luke tells us it was, ‘In Antioch that the disciples first bore the name Christians.’[4] Tradition records Luke was a native of the city, so it is not surprising he included this tidbit of contextual information in his Acts, and all the more given the title itself was not viewed as a positive accolade. The other two New Testament occurrences of our word also connote something decidedly negative.

During the first century, believers did not refer to themselves as ‘Christians.’ The label was applied to them unfavorably by Romans, and then uniformly in the context of persecution. Of course, Jews would hardly dignify the followers of Jesus with a name derived from Christos—the anointed One—whom they had long hoped for and expected.

Broader first century application

It is notable that Χρηστιανοι (Chrēstianoi, ‘followers of Chrēstus’) is the reading in all three passages in which the name ‘Christian’ appears in Codex Sinaiticus.[5] During the mid- first through mid- second centuries, this was the term widely attested in Christian and non-Christian sources.[6] Chrēstus, meaning ‘useful,’ was a common Greek slave name, and contemporary Roman writers were prone to using Chrēstianoi spitefully when describing believers in Jesus—followers, it was assumed, of a rebellious and crucified slave.[7] Furthermore, the average Roman would have lacked the cultural sensitivity to comprehend the Jewish nuance implicit in Christ, hence they understood Chrēstos whenever they heard Christos.[8]

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

To be a Christian is to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is to be the kind of person described by the very terms first century believers in Jesus called themselves: disciples (μαθηταὶ, mathētai); brethren (ἀδελφοί, adelphoi); saints (ἁγίοις, hagiois); believers (πιστοί, pistoi); and the elect (οἱ ἐκλεκτοί, hoi eklektoi). It is to prioritize the same things Jesus emphasized.[9]

Uncomfortable as it may be for some to accept, the Revival Centres and Fellowship do not emphasize the name, person, ministry, death, and resurrection of the Messiah-King, Jesus. Calvary is not central to their theology,[10] just as the second Person of the Godhead does not stand at the heart of their so-called ‘salvation message’ (see, THE GOSPEL). At best Jesus Christ is an abstract figure in the Revival Centres and Fellowship, at worst he is replaced as Savior and Advocate by the Holy Spirit (see, THE HOLY SPIRIT).[11]

Conclusion 

The historically pejorative expression Christian means no more, and no less than ‘a follower of Christ.’ Linguistic naivety, coupled with a profound ignorance of the Greek language doubtless caused to the founders and formulators of the Revival Centres and Fellowship to make such a patently silly translation error.[12] However, and despite receiving correction on many occasions over the years, the current leadership refuses to repent and drop this wrong-headed teaching. They apparently prefer to knowingly continuing the error as it better suits what they believe it is to be a so-called ‘Spirit-Filled Christian.’

The Revival Centres and Fellowship are not part of the Christian church given they do not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.[13] A more appropriate designation is Longfeldians, given they uncritically follow the multiplied heresies of Lloyd R. Longfield and his spiritual heirs.

[1] K. Hollins, What Must We Do To Be Saved? Revival Centres International, 1975 (reissued 2025), p. 1

[2] See, s.v. Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ in, F. Danker, et. al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd, ed., University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 1090

[3] Acts 11:26; 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16

[4] The infinitive χρηματίσαι (chrēmatisai, ‘to bear’) connotes a negative implication

[5] Codex Siniaticus is a fourth century Greek manuscript containing the majority of the Old Testament, and all the books of the New Testament. It is one of the earliest complete Christian Bibles currently known

[6] E.g. Ignatius, Magnesians 10, Romans 3, Philadephians 6; and Tacitus, Ann. xv.44; Suetonius, Nero xvi; Pliny, Epistles X.xcvi

[7] Crucifixion was the ordinary punishment meted out to rebellious or insubordinate slaves

[8] The vowels eta and iota were pronounced the same in first century koinē Greek, hence Chrēstos and Christos would have sounded identical

[9] See, e.g. John 13:34, 35 and Luke 6:46

[10] See, John 19:30

[11] Perhaps more correctly, he is replaced by ‘speaking in tongues’

[12] Notably Strong’s Concordance correctly translates the term

[13] See Matthew 7:21-23

Good afternoon, All.

I've received several emails asking me to post the Please Consider essays here. I won't do this for all of them, but I am happy to share those which build on earlier posts of mine that appear here. To this end, please see my piece on Mark 16.

Blessings,

Ian

Mark 16

“He (Jesus) said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”  

The Revival Centres and Fellowship appeals to the closing verses of the Gospel According to Mark chapter sixteen as a standard proof-text to authenticate what they claim is the individual Pentecostal experience of their members (see, PENTECOST). However, there is an all-too-common practice of selective reading within these fellowships, where the contexts of the various biblical passages are often not read—nor applied—in their entirety.[1]  

The Revival Centres promotes founding pastor Lloyd Longfield's idiosyncratic interpretation that Mark sixteen should be read metaphorically from verse nine onwards. The reason for this is to justify the absence of the majority of the signs described in our passage from Revival Centres’ experience. Given there is nothing in the closing verses to Mark that implies a shift between literal and metaphoric senses, this is a clear example of special pleading; more on this later.

Our essay will review the closing verses of Mark sixteen by comparing what it presents against what the Revival Centres and Fellowship teaches, and which will necessarily involve a close reading of the passage in Greek. I contend the passage when read in context does not sustain the beliefs promoted by these groups. 

The longer ending(s) 

I will begin by briefly addressing an issue that seems quite controversial in Revivalist circles: the question of authenticity with respect to Mark 16:9-20.[2] Many are concerned that an overwhelming majority of modern English Bible translations contain footnotes to the effect: the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. They worry because the King James Version (see, KING JAMES VERSION) includes these verses without reference or comment, and so perhaps modern translators are attempting to distort or even remove the passage from God’s Word. At issue seems to be the trustworthiness of Scripture. However, as I will demonstrate, this simply is not the case.[3]

There are approximately five thousand, eight hundred Greek manuscripts of the New Testament currently known, and the vast majority of these are incomplete dating from the eighth century onwards.[4] Two important considerations result from this. First, the bulk of the manuscript evidence is almost seven hundred and fifty years older than the account that originally left Mark’s pen. Second, they represent a form of the Greek text fixed at Constantinople sometime between the fifth and seventh centuries. The overwhelming majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts therefore reflect a polished and edited form of the text commonly referred to as the Byzantine, or Majority text type. This developed in the centuries immediately following Constantine’s elevation as Roman Emperor, and is largely the same Greek text that underpins the King James and New King James Versions.

However, there are many Greek manuscripts that date considerably earlier than the eighth century, generally from the third, fourth and fifth centuries. The so-called Church Fathers quoted multiplied New Testament passages from the second century onwards in their writings, and there are numerous early translations of the New Testament beginning with the third century. What we discover is the form of the Greek text in widespread use—from Palestine through to North Africa and Asia—displays marked differences to the later Byzantine/Majority text.

Critically, every manuscript of the Gospel According to Mark that includes chapter sixteen includes the text up to verse eight: “And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” However, from verse nine onwards significant differences appear, and many would be surprised to learn there are, in fact, three ‘longer’ endings:

“Early, on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had previously cast out seven demons. She went and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. And when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they did not believe. After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Then he appeared to the eleven while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.' After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. The eleven went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.”

Of course, this is the best known, and ‘common’ longer ending found bracketed as doubtful in most English translations. It is also included without comment in the King James Version that is preferred by the Revival Centres and Fellowship. 

There is also:

“They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things, Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and enduring preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.”

This expansion was frequently added to the common longer ending, especially in manuscripts dating from the seventh century onwards, and indicates there was some uncertainty as to which was the ‘proper’ text. Finally, there is the version quoted by Jerome, early in the fifth century:

“And they replied, saying, 'this age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who through his demons doesn't permit the true power of God to be understood; therefore, reveal your righteousness now!' They were speaking to Christ, and he said to them in reply, 'The limit of the years of the authority of Satan has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near, even for the sinners on whose behalf I was delivered up to death, that they might turn to the truth and no longer sin, so that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.'”

The manuscript evidence in its entirety knows four endings to the Greek text of this Gospel, and the earliest among them do not include any of the ‘longer’ endings. In a similar vein, the ‘longer’ endings are missing from the earliest translations. Quotes of Mark chapter sixteen in the letters of the Church Fathers from the second and third centuries demonstrate no knowledge of the common ‘longer’ ending either, the sole exception being Irenaeus:

“Towards the conclusion of his gospel, Mark says: 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God.[5]'”

It is only from the mid to late third century that endings after verse eight start to multiply in the manuscripts, and in the letters written by Church Fathers.

The brief overview of the textual evidence indicates the author of the Gospel According to Mark, who probably wrote sometime around AD 60, did not write verses nine through twenty. However, the evidence also suggests that ‘longer’ endings to his Gospel began to circulate from the middle of the second century, and these clearly reflected traditional beliefs and understandings held within segments of the early Church.

Two issues warrant consideration. First, there is nothing in the common ‘longer’ ending, or in any of the ‘longer’ endings, which stands contrary to the rest of the New Testament witness concerning Jesus Christ and his teachings. Second, the Church recognized all four endings as canonical in the fourth century. Consequently, all qualify as Scripture, and so it is perfectly correct to appeal to Mark 16:9-20 in this way.

Mark 16:15-18

Having briefly reviewed the passage’s history, we can consider what Mark 16:15-18 presents. 

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover.”[6]

Jesus' parting words to his disciples began with, “Go into the world, and preach the gospel to everyone.” To Christ, the most important thing in the world was not that the disciples went into it, but that they preached the gospel there. The single Greek imperative; the sole command, is κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (kēruxate to euangelion), ‘preach the gospel’ (see, THE GOSPEL). I have contended elsewhere that the Revival Centres and Fellowship has fundamentally misunderstood the content of the gospel, and so has fundamentally misunderstood the nature and requirements for salvation (see, SALVATION). 

When presented with the message about Jesus as Messiah-King, the hearer is compelled to make a binary choice: either believe, or disbelieve. Jesus assured his disciples the one who believes, and is then baptized, will be saved (see, BAPTISM). However, the one who disbelieves the gospel will be condemned. It is at this point that we need to take note of several features of Greek grammar. The words translated ‘believes’ (πιστεύσας—pisteusas) and, ‘is baptised’ (βαπτισθεὶς—baptistheis), are both aorist, active voice participles. The verb ‘will be saved’ (σωθήσεται—sōthēsetai) is in the future tense, passive voice, and indicative mood. This indicates the person who exercises belief in the gospel message, the person who demonstrates his or her faith through baptism, can rest assured of receiving everlasting life from God from the point of believing forwards. Crucially, the baptism component is consequent on the believing component. The Greek coordinate conjunction translated and functions in a copulative sense, which is the normal role of the second protasis in implied conditional Greek sentences.[7] In other words, a lack of baptism does not lead to a lack of eternal life. The same is true of the baptism component in the oft-quoted Acts 2:38 proof-text (see, ACTS 2:38).

We now arrive at the most disputed portion of this biblical passage: Christ's teaching on the signs, themselves.

These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will recover...

Given Jesus used the Greek plural for signs (σημεῖα—sēmeia) in our passage, the first questions we need to ask ourselves are simple: how is the word used within the New Testament record generally, and in the Gospel According to Mark in particular?

Our word appears seventy-seven times in the New Testament. Most of the occurrences are in the Gospels (forty-eight, with six in Mark); however, the word also appears eight times in Paul's writings, once in Hebrews, and seven times in John's Revelation. The standard definition is, “(1) a sign or distinguishing mark whereby something is known, and (2) an event that is an indication or confirmation of intervention by transcendent powers.”[8]

Notably, the semantic domain for sēmeion includes the concept of ‘miracle’. A standard reference distinguishes clearly between sēmeion, and τέρας (teras—’miraculous sign’), but notes the latter occurs exclusively in the plural, and only occurs in combination with the former in the New Testament.[9] This indicates the author of the passage in Mark intended his readers to understand the signs of 16:17 pointed to the direct intervention of God in an openly miraculous way.

We should also note the Gospel According to Mark describes five very specific signs that would accompany those who believe. First, in Christ's name they will drive out demons (see, DEMONS).[10] Next, they will speak in new languages (see, SPEAKING IN TONGUES). Further, they will pick up snakes with their hands, they will drink poison without harm, and they will heal the sick through the laying on of their hands.

The problem

Revival Centres founder Lloyd Longfield taught the majority of these signs were metaphorical, but this clearly smacks of special pleading. Longfield altogether rejected the existence of demons,[11] and he simply would not credit Mark literally meaning what is implied by the references to the handling of snakes and the drinking of poison. Consequently, the Revival Centres teaches the first sign is “the casting out of false religious ideas”. The third sign deals with “the handling of sly, malicious people”, and the fourth sign with “hearing false doctrine without being spiritually harmed”. Of course, this sort of picking-and-choosing of what to take metaphorically versus literally in a grammatically uniform passage simply is not honest, nor is it in any sense defensible from what the text actually states. We will address why this is so shortly. 

The Revival Fellowship seems split on the issue. Some of the first generation of pastors are inclined towards Longfield’s weak excuse,[12] while others potentially accept the literal interpretation of the majority of the signs, but understand them to be latent promises to be applied when, where, and as required. A significant difficulty with this latter interpretation is that it confuses what the Gospel According to Mark calls signs, and what Paul refers to in his first letter to the Corinthians as spiritual gifts. The former serve to miraculously demonstrate the reality of God before an unbelieving world, while the latter serve to build-up an already believing Christian community. In reality though, they too have attempted to reinterpret the straightforward teaching of Scripture because it does not conform to the organization's doctrine, experience, or practice. 

The Revival Centres and Fellowship claim the literal gift of speaking in tongues. However, because they mistakenly link this spiritual gift with the receiving of God's Holy Spirit in the mystery of salvation (see, THE HOLY SPIRIT), they are unable to jettison Mark 16:15-18 due to the difficulties a straightforward reading of the passage presents. Hence the interpretative wrangling. Unfortunately for them, the grammar of the passage does not allow for so casual a picking-and-choosing of what one is prepared to accept as literal versus metaphoric. The signs described are either all to be understood literally, or they are all to be understood metaphorically. The antecedent to the ‘they’ implicit in each of the third person sign verbs (‘drive’, ‘speak’, ‘pick up’, ‘drink’, and ‘place), is the ‘those who believe’ of verse seventeen, referring back to the ‘whoever believes’ of verse fifteen. The Greek language has available a range of abstract grammatical and syntactical markers an author can use to highlight metaphorical language, none of which are found in our passage. In our verse the opposite is the case. Mark chose to employ the future tense, active voice and indicative mood verb παρακολουθήσει (parakolouthēsei, ‘will accompany or follow’) in a declarative sentence. This grammatical construction defines a concrete statement or assertion, one which must be taken literally from the author’s perspective.[13] A metaphorical interpretation is expressly excluded!

Herein lies two Gordian knots the Revival Centres and Fellowship have unsuccessfully sought to unravel. First, and contrary to Longfield’s mistaken assertion, the grammar of the verse demands a literal interpretation. Next, according to the logic of the second approach, all believers must evidence all of the signs, all of the time, as a sign is only a sign when it is on display.

The solution

The Revival Centres and Fellowship assumed two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse seventeen: ‘… these signs shall accompany those who believe’. First, that the future tense indicates a promise rather than a prediction. Second, that it is a promise to every individual believer. However, the statement itself appears after a conditional sentence (verse sixteen), and the range of subsequent conditions: ‘he that/and is/shall be’ demonstrates the reverse is the case: it is predictive rather than promissory. Furthermore, all of the six instances of third person verbs mentioned with respect to the signs listed in verses seventeen and eighteen are Greek categorical plurals. Categorical plurals function to separate and distinguish a group of one sort, from every other group, and when applied they yield a generic notion.[14] To put this another way, the focus is towards an action rather than it is towards an actor—e.g. ‘this is the sort of person who does this’. In our passage, the various signs function to distinguish Christian believers as a group, from every other group of people on the planet. 

The evidence conclusively demonstrates the longer ending to the Gospel According to Mark chapter sixteen does allow a picking-and-choosing between literal and metaphorical interpretations, and neither does it teach that all believers will cast out demons, through to healing the sick. The stress is not on the notion of promises made to believers; it is on the miraculous authentication of Christianity before an unbelieving world.

The longer ending teaches that some Christians may speak in tongues. Others may cast out demons. Others still may be involved in the snake handling, poison drinking and faith healing effects described in the passage. However, the purpose of the effects is to demonstrate the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group separate to, and separate from, every other religious group. The effects—the signs—are not promises to individuals, they are corporate predictions. 

Conclusion

The Revival Centres and Fellowship appeals to Mark 16:15-20 to authenticate their experience of speaking in tongues. They further appeal to the passage to validate their mistaken belief that one must speak in tongues in order to be classified as a true believer. However, this is not what the text presents. Mark 16:15-20 neither reflects nor represents the doctrine, experience or practice of the Revival Centres and Fellowship. And while they have gone to extraordinary lengths to explain-away the missing signs, what has been missing all along is an appreciation of the passage's proper meaning and application.[15]

The grammar of the Greek text of Mark 16:15-20 does not support what the Revivalist groups believe and teach. It actually stands directly odds to their dogma.

[1] This speaks to their untethered and subjective method of interpreting Scripture, which largely reads into the Bible what they already believe, rather than reading out from the Bible what is actually there

[2] Various Revival Centres and Fellowship pastors have presented public talks or papers defending the common ‘longer’ ending over the years

[3] The issue relates to the discipline of textual criticism, which involves the close study of ancient manuscripts, their similarities and differences

[4] About 85% of them

[5] Irenaeus (d. 200), Against Heresies 3.10.6. This is a clear, direct quote from Mark 16:19

[6] This is a good example of an implied conditional sentence in Greek, one employing a substantival participle in place of the formal structural markers of, ‘if / then’

[7] The two conditions listed in the protasis (the implied ‘if’) do not bear the same relationship to the apodosis (the implied ‘then’). The first is the cause (‘[if] you believe’), and the fulfilment of the apodosis depends on it (‘[then] you will be saved’). The second functions as the evidence of belief (‘and [if you] are baptised’); consequently, the apodosis does not depend on it for fulfilment. Baptism, therefore, is a not a salvation requirement

[8] F.W. Danker, et al. (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., University of Chicago Press. 2000, s.v. σημεῖον, ου, τό

[9] C. Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2

(rev. ed.) Paternoster Press, 1985, s.v.v. σημεῖον & τέρας pp. 626-635

[10] See, e.g. Luke 10:17-20

[11] This despite Longfield being subject to ‘deliverance’ himself by Tom Foster, when he was a member of the National Revival Crusade

[12] See, e.g. Brad Smith https://www.brf.org.au/videos/showvideo.jsp?videoid=118

[13] D. Mathewson and E. Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for the Students of the New Testament, Baker Academic, 2016, pp. 160-161

[14] D. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1996, p. 405-406

[15] The leadership of the Revival Centres and Fellowship lacks the training and skills required to read and interpret the Greek text of the New Testament