What's with the snake handlers?

[MMathis]

A person died yesterday handling snakes in church.

They use Mark 16:18 to justify what they are doing.

it sounds nuts to me, but that's what it says.

What do you think of this practice?

[morbo3000]

That passage has poor pedigree.

The Archaeological Study Bible says:

Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark (see “ The Ending of Mark”). After extensive study of all manuscripts, many scholars believe that one or more scribes took a hand at “writing a more appropriate ending,” using the information from the other Gospels to avoid their own discomfort and to “fill in the blanks” for future generations (see “ Early Scribal Emendation”). Still, the book through verse 20 is included in the New Testament canon — the authorized Scripture of the church

[Paidion]

A person died yesterday handling snakes in church.

They use Mark 16:18 to justify what they are doing.

it sounds nuts to me, but that's what it says.

What do you think of this practice?

Even if the passage is genuine, I don't think it is to be used to demonstrate in church that believers are unharmed by poisonous snakes. If Jesus said this, it seems to me that he would have meant that if a poisonous snake is a threat to someone, a believer can pick it up and remove it without being harmed, or if a believer accidentally picks up a poisonous snake or is attacked by a poisonous snake, he will be unharmed.

A poisonous snake (viper) struck Paul's hand and fastened itself onto it, and the natives of Malta thought he would die from it, but he just shook it off without being harmed. (Acts 28:1-6)

[Ian]

I`m glad someone brought this matter up. This has bothered me since it happened. If a pastor gets caught with a prostitute and creates the usual torrent of cynicism on forums and comment sections all over the web, there`s not a lot the Lord can do to prevent it. He committed Himself to honouring the man`s freewill. But this is in another category. I do agree with Paidion that it is a misapplication of this passage. It can`t be a pastor`s ticket to go and fetch snakes out of the wilderness and bring them into church. It does seem to be testing the Lord in a way. But I don`t understand why the Lord is not more protective of His reputation regardless. This has always confused me.

[TK]

Ian wrote:

But I don`t understand why the Lord is not more protective of His reputation regardless. This has always confused me.

I am not sure what you mean by this-- are you wondering why God doesn't protect these snake handlers in spite of themselves?

I could say that God doesn't protect fools but that would not be very nice.

Or you might be saying that these snake handlers make Christians look like a bunch of goofballs- and I would agree with you there.

Every version of Mk 16:18 that I read says something to the effect that "they shall take up serpents with their hands." It doesn't say anything about them surviving snake bites, although admittedly this may be implied. But it is not stated explicitly.

So it is seems these snake handlers are taking up snakes to demonstrate their faith (that they will not be bit). In the videos I have seen of this bizarre practice people are indeed handling vipers but it does not appear they are provoking them to strike. I have never asked one, but I suspect that a snake handler would expect to have an adverse reaction if actually bitten.

TK

[Ian]

Hi TK,

I`m not wondering why the Lord is not protecting these men for their own sakes (I`ve not much sympathy really),
but I am for His reputation`s sake (and therefore by association for the sake of His followers).

[mattrose]

I don't think it would help God's reputation to protect foolish people from foolishness. It's not quite the same thing as saving ancient Israel in spite of themselves in the Old Testament (where He often DID do this for the sake of His reputation). We're talking isolated pockets and individuals here, not the broader people of God.

As for my 2 cents, I don't think the extra verses in Mark are part of the original... but it wouldn't particularly bother me if they were. I think the signs mentioned there are a type of spiritual gift that was quite possibly connected to the Apostolic role necessary only in the first century. I'm not a cessationist, but I do believe that the ROLE of the Apostle (capital A) and the Prophet (capital P) were foundational roles/gifts that are no longer necessary (or in the case of the Apostle... possible). Apostleship was a special role which included attestation through the presence of multiple 'sign' gifts. Some of the gifts mentioned in that Mark paragraph are spiritual gifts that have other applications outside of apostleship, but a couple of them probably don't have much (God might still see fit to grant them on occasion) application today in His purposes.