deadly poison...?

[durangodawood]

From the Book Of Mark:
.
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 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 drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
.
What does this mean... particularly with regard to deadly poison?
.
Read plainly it says I can expect to know who's saved by those signs. Is it safe to presume that everyone since then who's died of deadly poison was not saved?
.

 

[Sketcher]

He's talking about the kinds of miracles which would accompany the word as it was preached. It is not a guarantee that every one of those miracles will happen when the word is preached.

 

[jayem]

He's talking about the kinds of miracles which would accompany the word as it was preached. It is not a guarantee that every one of those miracles will happen when the word is preached.

Not to be grammatically nit-picking, but the auxiliary verb "will," as rendered in that translation, does imply a definite future occurrence:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe..."

If you think the passage means only a possible occurrence, then it should say these signs may accompany those who believe.

 

[Sketcher]

Not to be grammatically nit-picking, but the auxiliary verb "will," as rendered in that translation, does imply a definite future occurrence:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe..."

If you think the passage means only a possible occurrence, then it should say these signs may accompany those who believe.

He is speaking in general terms. He is saying to the Apostles, you can expect things such as this to happen. And they and those they converted saw such things happen. They knew what he meant, too. There are many Biblical accounts of the Word being preached but not of all of these miracles done in a laundry list fashion at every city. "Let's see . . . I knew he was dead, I saw him risen, I'm preaching it . . . check, I'm healing people . . . check, I'm speaking in tongues . . . check, the snake . . . Mark, where's the snake? YOU LET IT GET AWAY? I can't handle it now! I guess this means it's all a crock! Never mind people, just go back to your old religion. Nothing to see here, nothing to see." I don't mean to be snide here, it's just a very wrong way to be interpreting and judging the promises of God.

 

[seashale76]

What does this mean... particularly with regard to deadly poison?
.
Read plainly it says I can expect to know who's saved by those signs. Is it safe to presume that everyone since then who's died of deadly poison was not saved?

Here's what the Orthodox Study Bible has to say:

Mark 16:15-18

15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these sign will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; 18 they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

16:17 New tongues refers to the ability to speak in languages that one has not learned in order to edify others in worship (1Co 14) and to preach the gospel (Acts 2:1-11).

16:18 To take up serpents refers primarily to spiritual battle against demons (Lk 10:19). Thus, Christ is promising to deliver believers from the powers of sin. Furthermore, this would include certain physical protection as well. St. Paul was bitten by a serpent and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3-6), and according to tradition, Barsabas Justus (Acts 1:23) was forced by unbelievers to drink poison and survived. Nevertheless, while God's grace can protect believers from both physical and spiritual harm, to test God by deliberately committing harmful acts against oneself is a grave sin (Dt 6:16; Mt 4:7).

If I might make a suggestion, if you're interested? Read the lives of the Christian saints. In the Orthodox Church we read the lives of the saints. There are numerous accounts of Christians who have been persecuted and tortured in various ways. Many ascetics have also been known for their struggle against demonic forces. Some miraculously survived only to die martyrs deaths later. However, even their deaths often converted the unbelievers around them. Everything is to the glory of God. Anyway, these accounts mirror the things mentioned in these scriptures. Why do you think Christians pray over their food and make the sign of the cross? There are accounts of saints who have done this and survived being poisoned.
.

 

[Van]

Hi Durangodawood,

The passage you are quoting is from a questionable ending for the book of Mark. So it is best not to rely solely on these verses. Now a similar account appears in Luke 10. Perhaps you should base your question on that passage.

The most obvious difference is Jesus gave the power to a group of disciples, with no indication that the power was not limited to that group.

 

[drich0150]

From the Book Of Mark:
.
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 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 drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
.
What does this mean... particularly with regard to deadly poison?
.
Read plainly it says I can expect to know who's saved by those signs. Is it safe to presume that everyone since then who's died of deadly poison was not saved?
.

It means for those who were taught by the ones Jesus sent out to "preach the good news" to, they drove out demons, They spoke in tongues, they picked up snakes with their hands, and the drank deadly poison and none of that hurt them at all.

No where in your selected passage does it say these "gifts" will be handed down from generation to generation. So if we are staying true to the above mentioned passages and all of it's "auxiliary verbs" we must also stay true to whom these verses were written. and simply speak where scripture speaks and remain silent were scripture is silent.

 

[durangodawood]

Thank you all for taking the time to respond. From your comments I'm still not quite sure what to make of this. Are the verses not reliable? Are "the saved" mainly saints whos extreme piety is evident in these and other miracles? Are there unwritten conditions that limit the verses' applicability to one generation?
.

Not to be grammatically nit-picking, but the auxiliary verb "will," as rendered in that translation, does imply a definite future occurrence:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe..."

If you think the passage means only a possible occurrence, then it should say these signs may accompany those who believe.

This is clear, based on the plainest unadorned reading of the verses in english
.

Here's what the Orthodox Study Bible has to say:

If I might make a suggestion, if you're interested? Read the lives of the Christian saints. In the Orthodox Church we read the lives of the saints. There are numerous accounts of Christians who have been persecuted and tortured in various ways. Many ascetics have also been known for their struggle against demonic forces. Some miraculously survived only to die martyrs deaths later. However, even their deaths often converted the unbelievers around them. Everything is to the glory of God. Anyway, these accounts mirror the things mentioned in these scriptures. Why do you think Christians pray over their food and make the sign of the cross? There are accounts of saints who have done this and survived being poisoned.
.

What lives-of-the-saints book do you recommend?
.

Hi Durangodawood,

The passage you are quoting is from a questionable ending for the book of Mark. So it is best not to rely solely on these verses. Now a similar account appears in Luke 10. Perhaps you should base your question on that passage.

The most obvious difference is Jesus gave the power to a group of disciples, with no indication that the power was not limited to that group.

By "questionable" do you mean that perhaps Mark didnt write it? Or that Mark himself invented some of the things he claims for Jesus? I see what you mean in Luke 10, but here in Mark the emphasis is clearly on believers generally.
.

It means for those who were taught by the ones Jesus sent out to "preach the good news" to, they drove out demons, They spoke in tongues, they picked up snakes with their hands, and the drank deadly poison and none of that hurt them at all.

No where in your selected passage does it say these "gifts" will be handed down from generation to generation. So if we are staying true to the above mentioned passages and all of it's "auxiliary verbs" we must also stay true to whom these verses were written. and simply speak where scripture speaks and remain silent were scripture is silent.

To limit these gifts to one generation seems to require us to add a condition to the verses, a condition that plainly is not there in the text. Read plainly: these gifts "will" accompany believers, the saved, going forward.
.

 

[Van]

A "questionable" part of scripture would be one modern versions put in brackets or otherwise denote as unreliable. In this case, if you compare the earliest copies of Mark, you will find versions that are "missing" verses 9 to the end of the book. But "later" copies have one of several endings. So we do not know that Mark did not write this ending, but we also do not know that some uninspired writer may have "added" it. So while we cannot line it out, it would be unwise to rely upon it where it differs from other better attested passages such as in Luke.

 

[seashale76]

Regarding The Lives of the Saints: The most comprehensive collection is The Synaxarion. It is six volumes. However, most Orthodox websites list the hagiographies of the various saints commemorated on any given day. The lives of the saints are read in the Church during our daily services.

Amazon.com: The Synaxarion: The Lives of the Saints of the Orthodox Church (Volume 1) (9789608560376): Hieromonk Makarios, Christopher Hookway: Books

The OCA website tends to have a good list of the lives of the saints:
OCA - The Lives of the Saints

 

[durangodawood]

A "questionable" part of scripture would be one modern versions put in brackets or otherwise denote as unreliable. In this case, if you compare the earliest copies of Mark, you will find versions that are "missing" verses 9 to the end of the book. But "later" copies have one of several endings. So we do not know that Mark did not write this ending, but we also do not know that some uninspired writer may have "added" it. So while we cannot line it out, it would be unwise to rely upon it where it differs from other better attested passages such as in Luke.

Makes sense. Is this view common? Do most Christians defer to Luke on this matter?
.
(The more I learn about biblical scholarship, the more the Bible becomes a mighty puzzle: many authors, various nascent Christian communities with different interests and needs, transcriptions, translations, the geneology of ancient myths, tribalism and universalism.)
.

 

[durangodawood]

...The OCA website tends to have a good list of the lives of the saints:
OCA - The Lives of the Saints

Thanks, esp for that^^^ one, which should give me a lot to ponder.
.

 

[seashale76]

Makes sense. Is this view common? Do most Christians defer to Luke on this matter?
.
(The more I learn about biblical scholarship, the more the Bible becomes a mighty puzzle: many authors, various nascent Christian communities with different interests and needs, transcriptions, translations, the geneology of ancient myths, tribalism and universalism.)
.

The Orthodox Church recognizes Mark 16:9-20 as inspired. You have to remember, durangodawood, that the Church existed before the New Testament was written. The Holy Scriptures are a huge part of Tradition, but they are a product of said Tradition. The Tradition of the Church also interprets scripture. I don't think it can be interpreted outside of this context, though we all know people try.

Look at it this way (I'm sure my analogy isn't that good, but I'm trying): The Tradition of the Church is like a newspaper and the New Testament is an article in the paper. People come along and cut out the article and lose the newspaper itself. What they fail to understand is that without the rest of the paper and the articles it contains, they are missing out on the whole picture.

 

[durangodawood]

The Orthodox Church recognizes Mark 16:9-20 as inspired. You have to remember, durangodawood, that the Church existed before the New Testament was written. The Holy Scriptures are a huge part of Tradition, but they are a product of said Tradition. The Tradition of the Church also interprets scripture. I don't think it can be interpreted outside of this context, though we all know people try.

Look at it this way (I'm sure my analogy isn't that good, but I'm trying): The Tradition of the Church is like a newspaper and the New Testament is an article in the paper. People come along and cut out the article and lose the newspaper itself. What they fail to understand is that without the rest of the paper and the articles it contains, they are missing out on the whole picture.

But surely people within the tradition must puzzle over this particular article, because I cant even imagine a context in which it squares with reality... unless believers/saved are so extaordinarily rare that most of us would encounter few in a lifetime.
.
OR, the verses speak in symbols...?
.

 

[seashale76]

But surely people within the tradition must puzzle over this particular article, because I cant even imagine a context in which it squares with reality... unless believers/saved are so extaordinarily rare that most of us would encounter few in a lifetime.
.
OR, the verses speak in symbols...?
.

I don't get what you're saying here. This does happen. In The Lives of the Saints it happened among those who preached the faith. Even in modern times, one hears of accounts.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't get what you're saying here. This does happen. In The Lives of the Saints it happened among those who preached the faith. Even in modern times, one hears of accounts.

Saints, sure. But these signs are supposed to accompany believers. There's more believers here just on CF than all the recognised saints put together. I would expect to see these signs with regularity.
.

 

[seashale76]

Saints, sure. But these signs are supposed to accompany believers. There's more believers here just on CF than all the recognised saints put together. I would expect to see these signs with regularity.
.

Serpents = demons and all believers should expect such attacks. Any believer who finds himself/herself preaching the gospel among others who don't speak their language can be given a gift from God to communicate with others so as to minister to them. Believers who are imprisoned for preaching the gospel sometimes encounter being poisoned, etc. and won't die.

There are miracles that happen all the time. The Holy Fire is a miracle that happens every year in Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There is also the miracle of the Snakes of the Theotokos which appears every year on the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos on the Greek island Kephalonia. Every time the Eucharist is celebrated in Divine Liturgy it is a miracle. It would be nice if people who witnessed or were told of miracles believed, wouldn't it? Sadly, if someone is determined to explain them away or disbelieve them, then no amount of wonders will convince them.

On Miracles and Signs

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/chudesa_e.htm

 

[ebia]

By "questionable" do you mean that perhaps Mark didnt write it? Or that Mark himself invented some of the things he claims for Jesus?

Mark didn't write it.
Mark's gospel originally ended at verse 16:8 (or possibly there was a different ending orginally). Verses 9-end were added latter; they aren't in the earliest and best manuscripts and are written in a very different style to the rest of Mark. One might take the verses as inspired still, but if one is going to do so one ought to do so as an independent passage - they ruin the proper ending of the gospel which deliberately leaves it on a cliff-hanger that posses a question.

 

[Van]

Hi Durangodawood, yes some Christians accept the text used in earlier translations, notably the King James Authorized Version, but others of us rely upon what is called the "Critical Text" which puts brackets around the questionable ending of Mark. Thus, when this section of Mark differs in some respect with another gospel (Luke in the case of drinking poison), the Christians who rely upon the Critical Text rely upon the other gospel.

 

[drich0150]

To limit these gifts to one generation seems to require us to add a condition to the verses, a condition that plainly is not there in the text. Read plainly: these gifts "will" accompany believers, the saved, going forward.

I beg to differ lets look at what is actually written. In Verse 15 we have Jesus Speaking to a specific Group of people.

15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

He said to "them" He didn't say to "all of us," nor was He speaking to those who would come after them. Jesus was speaking to a very select few. The 11 in that room. Meaning it was from the authority of God that these few Go out and preach the gospel. It was from His authority that the followers of the 11 got their signs. The 11 did not have the same authority as Christ so when they reissued the commission The power or signs Jesus spoke of did not transfer.. That is unless your saying being saved is a kin to being God.

It is also note worthy that there were more than the original 12 disciples who had been with Christ since the beginning of His ministry, and according to Mark 16 none of them received this "power" to give Spiritual Gifts. So what makes you think that we can receive and give this gift, if those outside of the core 11 apostles could not?

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

In 16 we get the crux of the message that was to be spread.

17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

In 17 and 18 we get a list of "signs" of those believers in whom had heard the Gospel. This list is a list of signs, and not a list of commands.
Later Paul explains to us that not all will share in the same gifts, (Because we are different members of the same body.) and that the "signs" we can display will not always be the same, nor are they always permanent.