Taking up serpents

[Slug1]

Mark 16:¹⁸ they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

I was hoping that we can have a discussion concerning the "taking up serpents" portion of this scripture and discuss this.

Does the portion concerning the taking up snakes have ONLY a "physical" meaning or can this be of or also include a "spiritual" meaning as well?

I ask because of such scriptures such as this:

Physically related:

Acts 28:3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. ⁴ So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.” ⁵ But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.

Spiritually related:

Luke 10:¹⁹ Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Now, to be straight up... the reason I've started this is because those who don't accept the Mark 16:18 scripture as part of the Canon can also clearly see the MEANING of the Mark 16:18 scripture is covered by other scriptures in the Bible. So, even if the Mark 16:18 scriptures never existed, the meaning is still valid.

[ewq1938]

Mark 16:¹⁸ they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

I was hoping that we can have a discussion concerning the "taking up serpents" portion of this scripture and discuss this.

Does the portion concerning the taking up snakes have ONLY a "physical" meaning or can this be of or also include a "spiritual" meaning as well?

I ask because of such scriptures such as this:

Physically related:

Acts 28:3 But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. ⁴ So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live.” ⁵ But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.

Spiritually related:

Luke 10:¹⁹ Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Now, to be straight up... the reason I've started this is because those who don't accept the Mark 16:18 scripture as part of the Canon can also clearly see the MEANING of the Mark 16:18 scripture is covered by other scriptures in the Bible. So, even if the Mark 16:18 scriptures never existed, the meaning is still valid.

Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.


While it's true angels can "bear thee up" the issue here is intentional tempting of God in the form of intentionally jumping off a cliff to force him to send angels to rescue you. That's not God's job, to rescue a fool from his intentional folly, or death wish. Same for serpents and poison. Paul didn't go find a serpent and tease it until it bit him nor did he drink poison to show how invincible he was. If God means to protect one from a deadly bite, etc...then you will be protected but don't push it.

[Boo]

16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

17And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

18they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

19So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

20And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

One of the first rules of bible interpretation is that we take literally those things which are stated unless it is obvious that some other method of teaching is being used.

Verse 16 is literal - no allegory or parable in it.

Verse 17 is literal - no symbolism at all.

Verse 18 is literal - same thing.

Verse 19 - is that not literal as well? I see no reason not to take it that way.

Verse 20 - literal. This phrase is saying that those who believe can cast out demons, speak in tongues, pick up serpents, drink poison, and lay hands on the sick who will recover.

All of that being literal as I see it, I must wonder why I do not read about those eleven playing with snakes and drinking poison but I do about casting out demons and speaking in tongues. They are all just as literal in these verses. The account of one accidental biting shows an incident which was not being used as a confirming sign. These, according to these verses, were given to be signs, but the evidence in scripture does not support this. Also, nowhere else in the Gospels are tongues, bitings by serpents as signs and poison drinking mentioned - yet here they pop up in Mark which closed out prior to Pentecost and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

When we think about it, ewq1938 makes a valid point. We are taught not to temp God, yet the ending of Mark in those verses claims that we can tempt God to prove our authority as messengers of God. It would seem that the instructions to not tempt God are being changed. Verses 17 and 18 conflict with others.

If the ending of Mark in the King James transation is our favorite justification for a belief, we need to search for a more valid one. These are not words breathed out of the mouth of God.

[awestruckchild]

We cannot take ANY of the words "just literally."
They are spirit because GOD is Spirit.
Anytime we take the word just literally, we are having eyes that don't see and ears that don't hear.
The words I give you, they are Spirit and truth.

[divaD]

We cannot take ANY of the words "just literally."
They are spirit because GOD is Spirit.
Anytime we take the word just literally, we are having eyes that don't see and ears that don't hear.
The words I give you, they are Spirit and truth.

But I think the point is this...


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;
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

In my name shall they cast out devils. If that is literal...

They shall speak with new tongues. If that is literal...

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. If that is literal...


Then it's not only unreasonable, but it is also inconsistent if the following is not literal.

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;


It would be understood like such.

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

That is one messed up way to interpret Scriptures IMO. BTW, not how I would interpret it myself. Just trying to illustrate a point.

[Scooby_Snacks]

Looking at the taking up of serpents, and the drinking of poison, in the spiritual sense made me think of deceptions.

I have more thoughts about this, but not really sure how to put it into words?

[Slug1]

Looking at the taking up of serpents, and the drinking of poison, in the spiritual sense made me think of deceptions.

I have more thoughts about this, but not really sure how to put it into words?

I raised this very thought in a past thread awhile back. I can't think of which thread though. It'll be interesting when you can put your thoughts into words.

[awestruckchild]

Looking at the taking up of serpents, and the drinking of poison, in the spiritual sense made me think of deceptions.

I have more thoughts about this, but not really sure how to put it into words?

I really want to hear this if and when it becomes more clear!!! Fascinating!

[Slug1]

In my name shall they cast out devils. If that is literal...

They shall speak with new tongues. If that is literal...

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. If that is literal...


Then it's not only unreasonable, but it is also inconsistent if the following is not literal.

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;

That is one messed up way to interpret Scriptures IMO. BTW, not how I would interpret it myself. Just trying to illustrate a point.

Well... when we go through scriptures, what examples do we have?

Casting out demons... offensively in context of the scriptures.

Speaking in tongues... done purposely in the context of the scriptures.

Laying hands on... offensively in context of the scriptures.

Taking up serpents... defensively in context of the scriptures.

Drinking poison... in the context with taking up serpents, defensive in nature.

So... in the case with serpents/poison, if a person was to do this in an offensive means, or a purposeful means... does this mean tempting God is being attempted? Thus the reason, they die?

[awestruckchild]

But I think the point is this...


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;
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

In my name shall they cast out devils. If that is literal...

They shall speak with new tongues. If that is literal...

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. If that is literal...


Then it's not only unreasonable, but it is also inconsistent if the following is not literal.

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;


It would be understood like such.

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

That is one messed up way to interpret Scriptures IMO. BTW, not how I would interpret it myself. Just trying to illustrate a point.

In re-reading your post, I think I finally understand what you are saying.
You see no reason to not take all of it literally - all the things mentioned.
I see no reason to not take all of them literally as well.
But the literal understanding of the words does not mean the words are not spirit as well.
Human reasoning and understanding are enough to read and understand the words as one would understand any words they read from any book.
But the words are also spirit just as Jesus said.
It is the spirit that avails a man anything, not the flesh. Understanding in his flesh is a different thing than what slug was meaning.

[Boo]

In re-reading your post, I think I finally understand what you are saying.
You see no reason to not take all of it literally - all the things mentioned.
I see no reason to not take all of them literally as well.
But the literal understanding of the words does not mean the words are not spirit as well.
Human reasoning and understanding are enough to read and understand the words as one would understand any words they read from any book.
But the words are also spirit just as Jesus said.
It is the spirit that avails a man anything, not the flesh. Understanding in his flesh is a different thing than what slug was meaning.

I think I am beginning to see your view. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I sense that you think that there are two meanings in each passage? If what is plainly written is taken as literal, you see that God meant it to be applied in some spiritual way as well?

[awestruckchild]

I think I am beginning to see your view. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I sense that you think that there are two meanings in each passage? If what is plainly written is taken as literal, you see that God meant it to be applied in some spiritual way as well?

Yes! Most definitely!!

[Boo]

Yes! Most definitely!!

Thank you. I was beginning to see that, and you seem to like that method. I don't follow it myself. Here is my list or "rules" for understanding scripture:

9 PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE.

I. FOLLOW THE CUSTOMARY USAGES OF THE LANGUAGE. "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense."

II. CONSIDER THE HISTORY AND CULTURE AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING.

III. BE CONSCIOUS OF CONTEXT. "Any TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT for a PROOFTEXT."

IV. APPLY ONE INTERPRETATION TO EACH PASSAGE. There will never be two correct ones.

V. CHOOSE THE SIMPLEST ALTERNATIVE.

VI. NEVER INVENT EXPLANATIONS TO SILENT AREAS OF SCRIPTURE.

VII. NEVER THEORIZE TO ACCOMMODATE PERSONAL VIEWS.

VII. NEVER BASE A DOCTRINE ON ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE.

VIII. CONSULT THE AVAILABLE MANUSCRIPTS AND SEVERAL TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE POSSIBLE MEANINGS - GOD HAS GIVEN US MANY RESOURCES TO HELP WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING.

IX. - Lastly, GOD GAVE US MANY BOOKS AND WRITINGS WHICH ARE NOW CANON. THEY ALL ASSIST IN UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER. SCRIPTURE WILL HELP US DECIDE WHICH MEANINGS WERE INTENDED BY THE WRITER - SCRIPTURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF. IF IT APPEARS TO, THEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS WRONG.

[awestruckchild]

Then I think you should continue on as you do. Seek the literal meaning as you have been doing. Those rules that other men have taught work for you and you are content with them.

[Boo]

Then I think you should continue on as you do. Seek the literal meaning as you have been doing. Those rules that other men have taught work for you and you are content with them.

I don't think I made myself very clear to you. Those "rules" for interpretation don't exclude taking the spiritual message out of scripture. However, those rules are meant to keep us from assigning meaning to scripture that is not there. There are spiritual lessons to be learned from each story, but the story is literal and true unless it is obviously a parable. Parables have only spiritual lessons to be learned. When we get so busy trying to assign other meaning to a scripture, we can miss the obvious literal point.

Please don't think that I miss the spiritual side of scripture - I just make sure that I accept the literal side as well. If I don't do that, some wordsmith with an agenda can lead me into a false understanding of God's message to us.