Jun 4, 2012 -- 5:16PM, TemplarS wrote:

The passage in question (Mark 16:18) is from the so-called "long" ending of Mark.  Since this does not appear in the earliest manuscripts, there is not universal agreement as to its authenticity.  It is not contained in any other Gospel.

In any case, as distinct from other parts of this passage, it is descriptive and not prescriptive.  "They will handle snakes" as opposed to "Go into the world and preach the Gospel".  So it is untrue to say that Jesus commanded his followers to handle snakes.

 

What's more, it doesn't specifically say poisonous snakes.  It does, however, immediately go on to say that they will also "lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover", as Cliff observed. 

Among the Greco-Roman audience for whom Mark was writing, Asclepius was the god of medicine and healing.  Non-venomous Aesculapian snakes were a prominent feature of temples dedicated to the cult of Asclepius and the healing rituals that it performed.  His symbol  was a snake coiled around a staff.  (Even today, this Rod of Asclepius is universally recognized as a symbol of the healing professions.  It's on ambulances everywhere, for example.)  Regardless of whether this verse was originally written by Mark or added by a later editor, I suspect it is an especially early example of the Christian movement gaining converts by co-opting pagan symbols and devotions.

I would of seeked treatment and the faith of God.

God comes first. I would go to him as I was going to the hosptial.

Everybody's faith is different.

Well, it seems to me that the passage in Acts lends support to the interpretation of handling venomous snakes with no ill effect. 

If the interpretation that the "long ending" of Mark is a later addition is correct, it is possible that knowledge by the author of Paul's encounter with the snake might have influenced the inclusion of this passage; it would then have been an actual example, not a theoretical one.  But certainly not a command to intentionally handle snakes.

Interestingly, the very next set of passages in Acts 28  deals with one of the other aspects of Mark 16:18:  Paul heals a sick man.

Jun 7, 2012 -- 9:34AM, TemplarS wrote:

Well, it seems to me that the passage in Acts lends support to the interpretation of handling venomous snakes with no ill effect. 

If the interpretation that the "long ending" of Mark is a later addition is correct, it is possible that knowledge by the author of Paul's encounter with the snake might have influenced the inclusion of this passage; it would then have been an actual example, not a theoretical one.  But certainly not a command to intentionally handle snakes.

Interestingly, the very next set of passages in Acts 28  deals with one of the other aspects of Mark 16:18:  Paul heals a sick man.

 

Acts 28:3-6 does say Paul was bitten on the hand by an echidna, presumably a viper (as it is often translated) or other variety of poisonous snake, without ill effect.  But the incident itself was obviously an accident, not an intentional test of God or test of his own faith.  Paul did not "handle" the snake, it merely happened to emerge unexpectedly from a pile of brush Paul was collecting for a fire.  The text doesn't even specify that it was Paul's faith that protected him. Perhaps the bite was in a harmless spot, or perhaps the snake had recently bitten something else and discharged most of its venom, or perhaps Paul shook it off and/or administered basic Boy Scout snakebite first aid quickly enough to mitigate the damage, or perhaps they didn't get a good look at it and it wasn't really a poisonous variety in the first place.

I like your comments about the parallel between Paul's snakebite immunity and healing others in Acts 28 and the reference in Mark 18 to poison immunity and healing.  It's an intriguing connection to speculate about.  Luke, who wrote the Acts passage, was himself a physician and healer by profession, and appears to have drawn on Mark as a source in composing his own Gospel, but he didn't repeat Mark's specific association of snakes, healing and immunity -- an association that, as a physician himself, he certainly would have recognized. To me that is another clue that the Longer Ending of Mark was likely a subsequent scribal gloss amending the original text.

But none of our scriptural distinctions and arguments against snake handling may sound persuasive to someone who has been indoctrinated since birth in the (scripturally unsound) premise that handling rattlesnakes is a proper way test or demonstrate the power of his own faith.  Especially if he grows up with competitive feelings toward his father, whose own faith proves too weak.