This topic is in the news right now because a pastor who handled snakes on a reality show died of a snakebite this weekend, http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/us/sna...storbitten130p and it also seems relevant because there has been a discussion in another thread about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
Putting aside the question of authenticity for a moment and just assuming for the sake of the argument that it is authentic (not my personal opinion), I have a hard time seeing how these verses justify snake handling during church services. I have heard that these services tend not to involve poison drinking (which would be a consistent implication of taking the entire passage as prescriptive in this way, see Mark 16:18). Is this actually the case? If so, why don't they? Also, why are the verses taken as a prescriptive directive when they seem to be a description of what will happen to believers such as Paul? Also, why wouldn't this be seen as an example of testing God such as when the devil tried to tempt Jesus to jump off the tower?
Putting aside the question of authenticity for a moment and just assuming for the sake of the argument that it is authentic (not my personal opinion), I have a hard time seeing how these verses justify snake handling during church services. I have heard that these services tend not to involve poison drinking (which would be a consistent implication of taking the entire passage as prescriptive in this way, see Mark 16:18). Is this actually the case? If so, why don't they? Also, why are the verses taken as a prescriptive directive when they seem to be a description of what will happen to believers such as Paul? Also, why wouldn't this be seen as an example of testing God such as when the devil tried to tempt Jesus to jump off the tower?
Comment