Must one believe and be baptized to be saved? And will anyone who does not do exactly that be damned? That, at least, is what seems to be stated in the Gospel of Mark. If one quotes only this one verse, it remains unclear what is meant by “believe,” “baptize,” “save,” and “damn.” It is not explained there.
In the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark one can read this:
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. But whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Mark 16:16
All clear? The matter-of-factness with which this verse is interpreted in a particular direction raises doubt. Doubt is appropriate here, because the text does not explain what is meant by these words. Some will not mind, because they feel no need to explain everything. Others, however, fear condemnation and are unsure whether they themselves are “good enough” or believe “correctly enough” to belong to the saved. Instead of “condemnation,” other translations speak of “damnation,” a heavily loaded word.
There is no quick answer to the interpretation of this verse. There is a good interpretation, but it rests on an understanding of the text in its own context. This means, on the one hand, the direct context of the text, but on the other hand also a general understanding of the Gospels. That is why this article is somewhat longer.
In this article
This article takes a closer look at an often-quoted Bible verse from the Gospel of Mark. As with any reading of the Bible, it is a matter of interpretation. There are better and weaker interpretations. This also depends on the presuppositions one brings to the text. It is demanding to think in a way that is truly “free of prejudice.” Here is an attempt nonetheless. This reflection therefore has several levels: it concerns the passage mentioned, but it also concerns the understanding of the New Testament and how one can get on the trail of the text.
- Read the text in context
- Read the text in its wider setting
- Distinguish between what is explicitly stated and explained and what is not
- One’s own presuppositions are important but always limited.
How one arrives at a conclusion is just as important as what one reads. To make it more accessible, after a general introduction this longer article is divided into three sections: Context, Placement and Interpretation.
Focus in the Gospels
This text is found in the Gospels. It is therefore closely linked to the message of the kingdom of God proclaimed there (Mark 1:15), which devout Jews were expecting.
“And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and God-fearing and was waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Christ of the Lord.”
Luke 2:25-26
Nobody knew of a present-day church or community. Simeon was waiting “for the consolation of Israel”. He was to see the Christ of the Lord before he died. The text thus speaks of an expectation for Israel, which Simeon saw fulfilled before his eyes. The word “Christ” is “Messiah” in Hebrew. It seems logical that this word and its meaning resonate here. Paul explains in the letter to the Romans:
“For I say that [Jesus] Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers.”
Romans 15:8
The context of the Gospels is therefore concerned with the promises of the fathers (of Israel), which is why Jesus became a “servant of the circumcision”. Jesus spoke about this.
Ways of looking
If one reads the verse from Mark 16:16 detached from its context, nothing is explained yet. A meaning is presupposed, which is linked to the words “believe”, “baptize”, “save” and “condemn/damn”. Who would want to interpret these terms with 100% certainty? The first thing that strikes one in the text is that the terms are used, but not explained in the slightest. So where does an assumed meaning come from? If it comes from one’s own tradition, then one reads the text through the glasses of one’s own tradition. If one could read this text through the glasses of the original listeners, perhaps a different picture emerges. The listeners were exclusively Jews. They expected a kingdom for Israel and the fulfilment of the promises to the prophets of Israel. Especially significant: nothing else was known.
From this point one can interpret in different ways:
- Some hijack everything in the New Testament for themselves and generously overlook every indication in the text. This is how one comes to apply the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount, and more to today’s church or community. Put differently: “Wherever Jesus is on the label, today’s community is inside.” This is the first possible reading.
- A second reading acknowledges that these texts were originally addressed to Israel, but interprets them today for the community. One line of interpretation that arrives at such conclusions is replacement theology. These ideas are somewhat older, but one already finds them in the designations “Old Testament” and “New Testament”, although the word “testament” should actually mean “covenant”. The old covenant applied to Israel; the new covenant applies to today’s community. Therefore, the Old Testament is supposed to speak of Israel, and in the stories of the New Testament, “Israel messed it up”, after which everything is given to today’s community. Plainly put: today’s community would have superseded, or replaced, Israel. Israel is read as a paraphrase for today’s community. Likewise, one speaks of today’s community as the “people of God”. Whereas the first view passes over the indications in the text, this second view reinterprets them.
- The third reading tries to understand the text from its own statements. Where Israel is written, Israel is meant. This seems sober and respects the text. If Jesus says in Matthew 15:24, for example, that he was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, one should take this statement seriously and not conclude beyond it that “so today’s community is meant”. The challenge here lies in taking the text seriously. The problem one meets here is drawing conclusions that go beyond what the text says.
In this article I will proceed from the third way of looking. It may be helpful, but it does not guarantee a “correct” view. I do not tend towards “absolute statements” but find “directions of interpretation” a more helpful expression. It leaves the horizon open for further discoveries, without getting tangled up in rigid positions.
How could one try to understand the text in its own context? One help is to omit everything that happens after this text, such as most of the Acts of the Apostles, the letters in the New Testament, or the whole later history of the church. These all have a task and provide much insight, but the listeners in Mark 16 knew nothing of them yet. That matters. If one can set later developments aside, the point is to consider the development up to the moment described. What could the first listeners have understood?
Context
Which commission?
If one begins reading a little earlier in the chapter, one finds this:
“Afterward, as they were reclining at table, he (the risen Jesus) revealed himself to the eleven and rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who had seen him raised. And he said to them: Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned.”
Mark 16:14-16
All of this takes place after the resurrection. Jesus reclines at the table with the 11 disciples after Judas Iscariot is no longer among them. Jesus rebuked their unbelief because they had not immediately believed those who had already seen Jesus as one raised from the dead.
After this rebuke there is a commission: “Go into all the world and preach …” This is a remarkable change, because earlier he had instructed the disciples not to go to the Gentiles (Matt 10:5). So the “whole world” was not yet a topic then. In Greek the word for “world” is “kosmos”, which means “ordered system”.
What does this mean here? Many questions can be asked about the expression “whole world”. Does it mean the known human civilization, or also the rainforests of the Amazon, or even the universe? Is this statement addressed only to a human society, or are the animals included as well? The subsequent reference to the whole creation seems to include all creatures. Does that make sense, though?
In these examples there is plenty of room for wild interpretations. It seems more obvious to take this world as meaning the known human society. The creation mentioned afterwards is not suddenly something else, but connects to the world just named. It is about people. To whom else would one want or need to proclaim something? That is not a limitation, but rather the release into a large world. The statement is significant, then, because of the broadening of the audience and target group compared with the first sending of the disciples.
But that does not say everything. Today such a statement is often thoughtlessly interpreted as “mission”. Demonstrably, however, it is not, because there was no such thing. It is a commission from Jesus, but nothing new; rather, it picks up the promises of the prophets. Paul mentioned this in the letter to the Romans:
“For I say that [Jesus] Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers; but that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: ‘Therefore I will confess you among the Gentiles and sing to your name’ (Ps 18:49). And again he says: ‘Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people!’ (Deut 32:43; Ps 67:3-4). And again: ‘Praise the Lord, all Gentiles, and let all these peoples praise him!’ (Ps 117:1). And again Isaiah says: ‘There shall be the root of Jesse, and he who arises to rule over the Gentiles – in him shall the Gentiles hope.’ (Isa 11:1-10).”
Rom 15:8-12
There is thus a legitimate hope for the Gentiles, which, however, was conceived as coming via Israel, in line with messianic promises and expectations (Isa 2:2). Paul mentioned a hope for the Gentiles, but more in a loose sense. What Paul proclaimed was not the fulfilment of the commission at the end of the Gospel of Mark. Paul was not sitting at the table there. What could the eleven apostles have understood?
There were clear promises to the prophets. From Zion the law (the Torah) will go out (Isa 2:3). The prophet Micah writes similarly (Mic 4:1-3). This situation has nothing to do with mission in today’s sense, but with Israel being a sign/banner/standard for the Gentiles (Isa 11:10). Elsewhere it says: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him the Gentiles shall be obedient.” (Gen 49:10, often interpreted with the help of Isa 9:6; Isa 11:1-5; Luke 1:32-33.)
From this background and the state of knowledge at the time of the Gospels one can conclude that this is not about a new commission but rather an old one, taken up by Jesus:
“Go and make disciples of all Gentiles, and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to keep everything that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the completion of the age.”
Matt 28:19-20
Now the point is to take this text seriously. What is named here, and what is not mentioned with a single word? This is not about a message like “Believe in Jesus so that you will be saved”, but about the commission to “make disciples of the Gentiles” and to teach them “to keep everything that I have commanded you”. Not personal salvation, but entire nations were to learn to follow commandments. Nothing else was known at that point. What Jesus commanded, however, was the prelude to the coming age, in which the messianic kingdom will be established. That was the coming kingdom.
Placement
The Completion of the Age
Where does the commission from Mark 16:16 belong? A comparison with Matthew 28 is helpful. Jesus’ assurance, “I am with you always, to the completion of the age”, makes sense because he had previously spoken of the close of this age and the transition to the new age (Matt 12:32). Better still, Jesus preached the Gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4:23; Matt 9:35; Matt 24:14) or the word of the kingdom (Matt 13:19) and spoke of this kingdom ushering in a new time, a new age. He presents it as a kingdom that had “come near” (Matt 4:17; Matt 10:7), and that one must “enter” (Mark 10:15).
Before the new age dawns, however, the present time must be brought to a close. Compare the disciples’ question in Matt 24:3 (“Tell us, when will this be, and what is the sign of your coming and of the completion of the age?”) and Jesus’ extensive end-times discourse in Matthew 24 and 25 as the answer to this question. It is all about the “close of this age” there, as a summing up and setting right of all things before the kingdom is established (Matt 13:40; Matt 13:49).
One might also remark about this expectation that Israel has a role to fulfill here and that salvation and righteousness begin from Israel. Israel is then a priestly nation (Ex 19:6), as Peter also writes (1 Pet 2:9), as a mark of his Gospel “of the circumcision” (Gal 2:7-9).
This focus is entirely different from Paul’s. Paul does not see the inclusion of the Gentiles as coming via Israel. Quite the opposite. He writes of Israel: “Through their fall salvation has come to the Gentiles.” Note: He does not write this without confidence for Israel (Rom 11:11-12). The apostle thus has an entirely different view from the prophets. This is no contradiction, if differences each receive their own place.
There are thus two concepts through which the Gentiles obtain “salvation”:
a. via Israel (everyone except Paul)
b. without Israel (Paul only).
Now, what is the salvation, or what is the purpose of being saved, in the Gospels? Within the framework of the explanations so far about the coming kingdom, as Jesus spoke of it, one should perhaps think of a share in this kingdom. Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins speaks of access to this kingdom (Matt 25:1-13). Nothing else is mentioned. Whoever believes and is baptized, as stated in Mark 16, therefore follows the messianic expectation. That is the framing narrative. It is not, by contrast, a story of heaven and hell or of “eternal damnation”. What Paul says is then once again entirely different.
Of course, this is an interpretation. I use it because it explains much in the Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament. The interpretation is a tool for drawing something meaningful from the text. So when someone develops an understanding of the text, the next question follows immediately: What is this view for, and what can I achieve better with it?
Interpretation
Which Gospel?
Mark 16:15 says: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation.” The Gospel? Which Gospel is meant here? Jesus proclaimed the Gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:14 et al.). That has nothing to do with the cross and resurrection or with the grace of God as people speak of it today. It was good news, but the content was clear: The kingdom of heaven has come very near. This was neither a Gospel of grace (Acts 20:24), nor a Gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal 2:7-9), nor an eternal Gospel (Rev 14:6).
It is common to throw everything into one pot and act as if there were only a single piece of good news. That, however, is a short circuit. One has to define the message. As an example: In Luke 1:19 an angel comes to Zechariah and proclaims the good news (proclaims the Gospel) that he and his wife would have a son (John the Baptist). It was indeed good news, but not a “gospel” in today’s sense.
The word “Gospel” and what is derived from it are neutral. Only the context determines its character. So when Jesus gives the commission to proclaim “the Gospel” in the whole world, it must be defined from the context of the Gospels which good message of a range of possibilities is actually meant.
The passage from Mark 16 takes place after the resurrection. In the first chapter of Acts it is the same period. In Acts 1:6 the disciples ask: “Lord, are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?” It is as if this summed up the expectation of the disciples, who had been taught by Jesus for three years. That has nothing to do with today’s community. The expectation was directed at the fulfillment of messianic promises. Jesus spoke of this, and the Gospels report it. Of today’s community made up of all the Gentiles, there is still nothing to be seen anywhere.
How should one now interpret the original text?
“Then he said to them: ‘Go into all the world and herald the Gospel to all creation! Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned.’”
Mark 16:15-16
If we understand this statement as part of the “Gospel of the kingdom”, it reads here as an indication and commission analogous to Old Testament promises. Via Israel the blessing was to reach the Gentiles. That is why “Gentiles” had to be “made disciples” and baptized, and why Jesus spoke of teaching commandments (Matt 28:19-20). An application to today’s community must be ruled out.
Jesus likewise does not speak about heaven or hell and mentions no doctrine of decision. Salvation and condemnation, by contrast, fit well within the framework of his end-times discourse (Matt 24 and 25), for instance in the judgment before the throne of glory, as Matthew writes about it. There the Gentiles are separated, as one separates sheep and goats (Matt 25:31-46).
Note that Mark 16 does not say that it is about individual faith, as it is mostly interpreted. The promises to the fathers (Rom 15:8), of which Jesus spoke, concerned entire gentile nations. In the Great Commission, the parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew, the concern was likewise the Gentiles, as in the judgment before the throne of glory (Matt 25:31) in the end-times discourse. Could it therefore also be about this view here in Mark 16? Salvation and condemnation are both mentioned, though not as a “final judgment” but as an “interim judgment” at the close of this age, so that it can be clarified who has a future in the kingdom.
Does this make sense? If so, where does this view encourage you, where does it help you? Where do you see it differently and why? Can you tease out concrete questions for yourself that help you move forward?