Serpent Handling

[Winken]

Bottom line: This was a promise by Jesus to the Apostles when they were out fulfilling His ministry they would not be physically harmed by snake bites. It has no applicability to the Church today, not since the Cross. Therefore, endangering one's life and that of others is a fleshly, secular pursuit, having zero to do with an act of faith. Those who handle snakes today in Christian assemblies are in no way promoting the Word of God. On the contrary, they are unknowingly (sadly) committing suicide, cutting short whatever authentic Christian ministry the Holy Spirit has anointed them with. Going out into the woods to find a snake or snakes for their incredible distortion of Scripture will cause them to be asked about it at the Judgment Seat of Christ, if they are in fact authentically saved to begin with.

Civil and criminal law must be invoked to reduce this grievous practice.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I assume that there are probably no serpent-handling Christians on this forum, as I have never even met one personally despite living in one of the few states they are active in. But I was reading that it is illegal in the Appalachian states to actually perform serpent handling in churches. While I see no significance in serpent handling and find it to be a bit excessive, I see no reason for it to be illegal. Do you believe it should be illegal? Is this not a form of religious persecution?

Interesting study. When you look at the original Greek used for serpent it is really a reference to the devil and the nature of the devil and not an actual physical serpent. Also, the Greek word for hand as in take them up, is feminine in nature and meaning and it really means a method of fulfilling purpose.

So if their religious freedoms are being violated it is really the freedom to have really bad doctrine.

 

[miknik5]

Interesting study. When you look at the original Greek used for serpent it is really a reference to the devil and the nature of the devil and not an actual physical serpent. Also, the Greek word for hand as in take them up, is feminine in nature and meaning and it really means a method of fulfilling purpose.

So if their religious freedoms are being violated it is really the freedom to have really bad doctrine.

They will take up serpents....And when they drink deadly poison it will not harm them


Can you expound the last part of the above in the same way you did the first part?


I would be interested in knowing what the last part based on the Greek is really referring to

 

[Curtis.Hilliker]

Sometimes when I invite people to church I tell them it's one of those churches where you have to worship with the poisoness snakes, but they shouldn't worry because they don't make you do that until at least the second time you go.....

 

[Foxfyre]

From a purely legal perspective, I think that if a person is 18 or older and they want to play with a snake, let them.
I don't think it's more dangerous, or outrageous, than letting them play with a gun or jump out of a plane with a parachute.

There is the power of authority though. We aren't talking about the dangerous things people do in their jobs or for fun or out of necessity. But if the church leaders are counseling the people that their faith will protect them from poisonous snakes or deadly poison and encouraging them or tempting them or enticing them to put that to the test, that is a very different thing.

 

[Waggles]

While I see no significance in serpent handling and find it to be a bit excessive, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And said 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.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Matthew 4:5-7

Illegal; yes probably best for public safety. Escaped retiles. Children and others in potential harm's way.
People being bitten and convulsing in public. Not a pretty sight.

Besides it is not how Paul instructs the first-century Church as to the proper order for a Communion
Meeting when the Church comes together.

 

[JoeP222w]

I assume that there are probably no serpent-handling Christians on this forum, as I have never even met one personally despite living in one of the few states they are active in. But I was reading that it is illegal in the Appalachian states to actually perform serpent handling in churches. While I see no significance in serpent handling and find it to be a bit excessive, I see no reason for it to be illegal. Do you believe it should be illegal? Is this not a form of religious persecution?

I don't think it is religious persecution because I don't anywhere in the Bible that God commands us to go out and mess with snakes.

I don't see why a Christian church would have any need or desire to purposefully bring snakes into the church. That is simply foolish.

 

[tstor]

Illegal; yes probably best for public safety. Escaped retiles. Children and others in potential harm's way.
People being bitten and convulsing in public. Not a pretty sight.

Besides it is not how Paul instructs the first-century Church as to the proper order for a Communion
Meeting when the Church comes together.

The snakes are indegenous to the region. So any escaped snakes would simply be going back to where they came from to begin with. It does not endanger the community in that regard. The people who show up to the church do so voluntarily. Children do not handle to serpents, as one has to be of an age of conviction and consciousness.

I agree with you about not understanding the need for serpents in a church. It is an example of misunderstanding Scripture, but that does not convince me that it should be illegal.

 

[The Brown Brink]

Snakes are wild animals.
We should leave them alone unless we're hungry.
And we're not hungry.

 

[381465]

Snakes are wild animals.
We should leave them alone unless we're hungry.
And we're not hungry.

Tastes like chicken.

 

[Ken Rank]

I assume that there are probably no serpent-handling Christians on this forum, as I have never even met one personally despite living in one of the few states they are active in. But I was reading that it is illegal in the Appalachian states to actually perform serpent handling in churches. While I see no significance in serpent handling and find it to be a bit excessive, I see no reason for it to be illegal. Do you believe it should be illegal? Is this not a form of religious persecution?

I do not see it as needing to be made illegal by the state. It would be better to for those in the church to reach out and share with these brothers why taking some verses literally actually takes from God's Word. I understand why they reach the conclusion they do... they are hyper-literal and reading only in English which says "you shall pick up serpents."

 

[ViaCrucis]

I assume that there are probably no serpent-handling Christians on this forum, as I have never even met one personally despite living in one of the few states they are active in. But I was reading that it is illegal in the Appalachian states to actually perform serpent handling in churches. While I see no significance in serpent handling and find it to be a bit excessive, I see no reason for it to be illegal. Do you believe it should be illegal? Is this not a form of religious persecution?

The first amendment isn't a free-for-all. There are, and always have been, limits on the exercising of rights in the United States. This is why, for example, we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussion.

Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to do anything we want in the name of religion. For example if I believe God told me personally to kill someone, I should still be justly arrested and charged for murder; in that case it's because my right to religious expression does not over-ride someone else's basic right to life. And that's why snake-handling is illegal, it might be one thing if you want to go out and snag a rattle snake and dance around with it; it's quite another to put other lives at risk--especially children.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is a slippery slope. If laws are passed to prevent this kind of thing in a church, a secular world could start passing laws against baptism, someone could drown, etc., etc.

There's a reason why it's often known as a "slippery slope fallacy".

Outlawing baptism because "someone might drown" would be ridiculous and there's no risk of that happening. Non-religious people aren't, en masse, looking to find ways to make religious practice illegal. And there is no meaningful risk of hurting someone by baptism, there certainly is a meaningful risk handling venomous snakes, or saying it is "my right as a parent not to vaccinate my child".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tstor]

The first amendment isn't a free-for-all. There are, and always have been, limits on the exercising of rights in the United States. This is why, for example, we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater without repercussion.

Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to do anything we want in the name of religion. For example if I believe God told me personally to kill someone, I should still be justly arrested and charged for murder; in that case it's because my right to religious expression does not over-ride someone else's basic right to life. And that's why snake-handling is illegal, it might be one thing if you want to go out and snag a rattle snake and dance around with it; it's quite another to put other lives at risk--especially children.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree that there are limits to the first amendment. Though I do not see serpent handling as an example.

Killing other people in the name of God is competently different than serpent handle, as I am sure you know. No one is forced to handle the serpent. It is voluntary. No one is endangered other than the one(s) engaging in it.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

They will take up serpents....And when they drink deadly poison it will not harm them


Can you expound the last part of the above in the same way you did the first part?


I would be interested in knowing what the last part based on the Greek is really referring to

I think focusing on the word used for drink (pino) in the greek gives us further insight. While it is used for drink, it is also a reference for taking in.

Strong's Greek: 4095. πίνω, (pinó) -- to drink - read the scriptural breakdown and comparison use of the word.

A few years back there was a show on TV about one of these churches. I remember thinking I should study that and see what the bible really says.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

"my right as a parent not to vaccinate my child".

Or until you do some studying and find out what exactly is in these "vaccines" by reading the ingredients. Things like mercury and squalene to start - off topic

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree that there are limits to the first amendment. Though I do not see serpent handling as an example.

Killing other people in the name of God is competently different than serpent handle, as I am sure you know. No one is forced to handle the serpent. It is voluntary. No one is endangered other than the one(s) engaging in it.

Do you believe it is acceptable to intentionally put other people in harm's way in the name of one's religious conviction? If I bring my child to a church and people are dancing with snakes and one of those snakes ends up hurting my child--I'm sorry, "freedom of religion" does not extend to "freedom to harm innocent people".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ron Gurley]

CAVEAT: Mark 16: (verses 9 to end) were ADDED to the oldest MSS ===> UNRELIABLE...especially when taking a verse out of context. These verses are CONTRARY to the TRUTH in the other 3 Gospels + Acts.

 

[tstor]

Do you believe it is acceptable to intentionally put other people in harm's way in the name of one's religious conviction? If I bring my child to a church and people are dancing with snakes and one of those snakes ends up hurting my child--I'm sorry, "freedom of religion" does not extend to "freedom to harm innocent people".

-CryptoLutheran

Then do not bring your child to the church? That would be like bringing them to a gun range lol. However, just like a gun range, the child can only be harmed if they are not in the right spot.

 

[tstor]

And there is no meaningful risk of hurting someone by baptism, there certainly is a meaningful risk handling venomous snakes, or saying it is "my right as a parent not to vaccinate my child".

-CryptoLutheran

And I also have no issue with people who do not use vaccines. Their choice.