Poison and Snakes

[agua.]

Mar 16:15-18 KJV And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I'm interested here in what the serpents and "deadly thing" are. We have the example of Paul on the beach at Melita where he wasn't harmed by a poisonous (?) snake so I can accept that Jesus meant literal snakes wouldn't harm us.

Act 28:3-5 KJV And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. (5) And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.


A Christian wouldn't deliberately drink poison so I assume we're protected if someone secretly tries to poison us ?

I've heard some other explanations of what the snakes and poison may be.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

it seems to be both literal snakes, and religious snakes (deceivers). there have been many reports over the centuries of believers ingesting what could kill hundreds of people, and not being harmed by it. there's also reports of believers dying of poisoning. Yhwh Decides.

likewise about religious snakes (or dogs, wolves, serpents, demons appearing as angels of light),
some are obviously and dramatically protected from the deceptions,
others are given over to the deceptions. again, Yhwh decides.

oh, in the Scripture there are a lot of tests, warnings, indicators, red flags, and so on for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear..... (but no one does to start with, do they?).... Yhwh decides (again).

look around your neighborhood - how many seeking and believing in Yeshua and living a life of truth and righteousness do you see ?
and how many following anything else (flesh, spiritual, emotional, economic, political, religious) do you see ?

how can anyone escape all the traps set every day for them ?

or as it is written, as the Apostle Paul says "who can save me from this life of sin and death?!" ... ... ...

 

[agua.]

Yes plenty of traps and snares but the true believer has Yahweh on their side. It's very strange to feel joy when persecuted because of Jesus but it feels good :D

 

[Webb]

Mar 16:15-18 KJV And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I'm interested here in what the serpents and "deadly thing" are. We have the example of Paul on the beach at Melita where he wasn't harmed by a poisonous (?) snake so I can accept that Jesus meant literal snakes wouldn't harm us.

Act 28:3-5 KJV And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. (5) And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.


A Christian wouldn't deliberately drink poison so I assume we're protected if someone secretly tries to poison us ?

I've heard some other explanations of what the snakes and poison may be.

Follow the antecedent and it shows it refers to the apostles. One may find the apostles encountered each item that Jesus said would follow those who believed except that of poison. Please note also the significance of that word "if" in the text which indicates that not all of the "signs" would necessarily confront the apostles which perhaps is why no record is made of them drinking poison.

 

[Gary]

Yes plenty of traps and snares but the true believer has Yahweh on their side. It's very strange to feel joy when persecuted because of Jesus but it feels good :biggrin

Your joy is the Holy Spirit smiling.
.

 

[Deborah13]

Follow the antecedent and it shows it refers to the apostles. One may find the apostles encountered each item that Jesus said would follow those who believed except that of poison. Please note also the significance of that word "if" in the text which indicates that not all of the "signs" would necessarily confront the apostles which perhaps is why no record is made of them drinking poison.

Are you saying this was just speaking of the 12, or also to the ones they would preach to and would 'believe and be baptisted'?
I take this a being those who also followed them in spreading the gospel to the unbelievers. Signs and wonders are for unbelievers.
I see things are different from the 'gifts' even though they do overlap somewhat.

 

[teddy trueblood]

The vast majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics … have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings [Mark 16:9-20] were originally part of Mark's Gospel. This conclusion extends back as far as the middle of the nineteenth century. Harnack, for instance, was convinced that the original ending was lost. Rendel Harris (1907) supplied the theory that Mark 16:8 had continued with the words "of the Jews." By the middle of the 20th century, the view that the Long Ending was not genuine had become the dominant viewpoint. By this time, most translations were adding notes to indicate that neither the Long Ending nor the Short Ending were original. Examples include Mongomery's NT ("The closing verses of Mark's gospel are probably a later addition...," 1924); Goodspeed's (who includes both endings as "Ancient Appendices," 1935); Williams' NT ("Later mss add vv. 9-20," 1937); and the Revised Standard Version (1946), which placed the Long Ending in a footnote. Tradition intervened, and by the early 1970s the complaints in favor of the verses were strong enough to prompt a revision of the RSV (1971) which restored the verses to the text—albeit with a note about their dubiousness. The vast majority of modern scholars remain convinced that neither of the two endings is Marcan.

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Scholarly_conclusions

 

[Butch5]

Mar 16:15-18 KJV And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; (18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I'm interested here in what the serpents and "deadly thing" are. We have the example of Paul on the beach at Melita where he wasn't harmed by a poisonous (?) snake so I can accept that Jesus meant literal snakes wouldn't harm us.

Act 28:3-5 KJV And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. (4) And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. (5) And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.


A Christian wouldn't deliberately drink poison so I assume we're protected if someone secretly tries to poison us ?

I've heard some other explanations of what the snakes and poison may be.

HI Agua,

I believe they are literal snakes and poison there is an example in the ECF's of someone drinking something poisonous without any harm. However, I also believe that only applied to those in the early church.

 

[agua.]

Your joy is the Holy Spirit smiling.
.

Amen Brother :biggrin

The vast majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics … have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings [Mark 16:9-20] were originally part of Mark's Gospel. This conclusion extends back as far as the middle of the nineteenth century. Harnack, for instance, was convinced that the original ending was lost. Rendel Harris (1907) supplied the theory that Mark 16:8 had continued with the words "of the Jews." By the middle of the 20th century, the view that the Long Ending was not genuine had become the dominant viewpoint. By this time, most translations were adding notes to indicate that neither the Long Ending nor the Short Ending were original. Examples include Mongomery's NT ("The closing verses of Mark's gospel are probably a later addition...," 1924); Goodspeed's (who includes both endings as "Ancient Appendices," 1935); Williams' NT ("Later mss add vv. 9-20," 1937); and the Revised Standard Version (1946), which placed the Long Ending in a footnote. Tradition intervened, and by the early 1970s the complaints in favor of the verses were strong enough to prompt a revision of the RSV (1971) which restored the verses to the text—albeit with a note about their dubiousness. The vast majority of modern scholars remain convinced that neither of the two endings is Marcan.

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Scholarly_conclusions

Yeah this has been an interesting passage.

HI Agua,

I believe they are literal snakes and poison there is an example in the ECF's of someone drinking something poisonous without any harm. However, I also believe that only applied to those in the early church.

Butch why do you believe it only applied to the early Church ?

 

[for_his_glory]

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

If you go back to vs. 17 Jesus says these signs, which IMO means when one is bitten by a snake, like Paul, or accidentally drinks something that is poisoned they believe God will restore them back to health. It's God laying His hands on them that does the healing, but it takes us to believe first that he will. When non believers see such healings they too may come to be believers in the Lord and accept Him as their Lord and Savior. Those snake handlers, mostly in the South, are taking vs.18 out of context as they literally pick up snakes by their own choice and dance around the room with them thinking nothing can happen to them, but look how many have died doing so. Shall take up serpents to me means like Paul when the snake bit him that he didn't know it was there and it bit him in the hand meaning Paul picked up his hand (shall take up serpents) with the snake holding onto it.

 

[Kathi]

Some Churches take this verse and say it is ok to handle snakes.The answer is NO!!!God can not be mocked.

 

[agua.]

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

If you go back to vs. 17 Jesus says these signs, which IMO means when one is bitten by a snake, like Paul, or accidentally drinks something that is poisoned they believe God will restore them back to health. It's God laying His hands on them that does the healing, but it takes us to believe first that he will. When non believers see such healings they too may come to be believers in the Lord and accept Him as their Lord and Savior. Those snake handlers, mostly in the South, are taking vs.18 out of context as they literally pick up snakes by their own choice and dance around the room with them thinking nothing can happen to them, but look how many have died doing so. Shall take up serpents to me means like Paul when the snake bit him that he didn't know it was there and it bit him in the hand meaning Paul picked up his hand (shall take up serpents) with the snake holding onto it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The vast majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics … have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings [Mark 16:9-20] were originally part of Mark's Gospel. This conclusion extends back as far as the middle of the nineteenth century. Harnack, for instance, was convinced that the original ending was lost. Rendel Harris (1907) supplied the theory that Mark 16:8 had continued with the words "of the Jews." By the middle of the 20th century, the view that the Long Ending was not genuine had become the dominant viewpoint. By this time, most translations were adding notes to indicate that neither the Long Ending nor the Short Ending were original. Examples include Mongomery's NT ("The closing verses of Mark's gospel are probably a later addition...," 1924); Goodspeed's (who includes both endings as "Ancient Appendices," 1935); Williams' NT ("Later mss add vv. 9-20," 1937); and the Revised Standard Version (1946), which placed the Long Ending in a footnote. Tradition intervened, and by the early 1970s the complaints in favor of the verses were strong enough to prompt a revision of the RSV (1971) which restored the verses to the text—albeit with a note about their dubiousness. The vast majority of modern scholars remain convinced that neither of the two endings is Marcan.

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Scholarly_conclusions

I agree with this post, the passage is an obvious interpolation from my perspective and study on the topic. I had to write a paper once on my position so I had to look into the evidence from the manuscripts as well as the writing style in the Greek. Even in the English it seems rather plain that this was written by someone else.

 

[Butch5]

Amen Brother :biggrin



Yeah this has been an interesting passage.



Butch why do you believe it only applied to the early Church ?

Because they are the supernatural gifts. It's my understanding that they were a sign to unbelieving Israel.

 

[Kathi]

Because they are the supernatural gifts. It's my understanding that they were a sign to unbelieving Israel.

Do supernatural gifts apply to today?Such as playing with snakes in Church or taking bottle of poison and drinking it down and saying God will save me?

 

[Butch5]

Do supernatural gifts apply to today?Such as playing with snakes in Church or taking bottle of poison and drinking it down and saying God will save me?

I don't believe they do. However, saying God will heal me isn't a supernatural gift it's God doing a miracle.

 

[Kathi]

I don't believe they do. However, saying God will heal me isn't a supernatural gift it's God doing a miracle.

That is correct.And it is the grace of God if His will is to heal you.Sometimes that does not happen.

 

[Butch5]

That is correct.And it is the grace of God if His will is to heal you.Sometimes that does not happen.

I agree but I don't believe that is a gift.

 

[Webb]

Are you saying this was just speaking of the 12, or also to the ones they would preach to and would 'believe and be baptisted'?
I take this a being those who also followed them in spreading the gospel to the unbelievers. Signs and wonders are for unbelievers.
I see things are different from the 'gifts' even though they do overlap somewhat.

Follow the antecedent.

 

[Deborah13]

Follow the antecedent.

Did that.