Serpent Handling

[Daniel Marsh]

Only one person so far has qualified these serpents as venomous. I have had a number of snakes as pets, all non-venomous. I have never been bitten once, though I had one snake that I found some boys abusing, and asked if I could have it. It would strike at the glass of the aquarium unlike all the other snakes I had. Sorry for getting off the topic. Mark 16:18 says "They (Christians in the first century) shall take up serpents..." A fulfillment of that was Paul in Ac 28:3 "And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks...there came a viper...and fastened on his hand." V. 5 says he shook off the beast and felt no harm. Drinking poison was also a sign of one of these first believers, Mk 16:18. In both cases, these were not to be done on purpose, testing God, or like Satan's suggestion for Jesus to cast himself off the temple, but if they happened God could use them to show his protection upon His representatives as credentials that they were really His messengers. Once the New Testament was completed, it became the credentials, the authority for which God's messengers were to turn to, not these signs of miracles. 1Co 13:10.

You are right Paul's case was not on purpose.

The ending of Mark 16 is a disputed text which has two or three endings.
Personally, I would not build Theology on a disputed text when the clear example of Paul is in the Bible.

The only other passage I can think of is,

Numbers 21:8-9English Standard Version (ESV)
8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

And, no one got bite on purpose.

I am not sure if this matters or not, snake handling churches are oneness Pentecostals, who deny the Trinity and are well known for many abuses and false doctrines.
There is a forum called Spiritual Abuse which discusses many of the abuses in modalist churches. aka Jesus Only churches.

Not all Jesus Name churches believe in serpent handling

I think snake handlers make Christianity looks ridiculous.

Personally for the purpose of protecting people from themselves, that is killing themselves by non-biblical practice of purposely drinking poison or purposely taking up snakes(foolishly testing God) --- yes, I think it should be against the law. These people by purposely breaking the law indicates that they do not understand scripture, nor are they law abiding.

This is not a question of Obeying God vs Obeying the laws of man (Romans 13).


Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Deuteronomy 6:16 “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

 

[tstor]

I am not sure if this matters or not, snake handling churches are oneness Pentecostals, who deny the Trinity and are well known for many abuses and false doctrines.
There is a forum called Spiritual Abuse which discusses many of the abuses in modalist churches. aka Jesus Only churches.

Not all Jesus Name churches believe in serpent handling

I think snake handlers make Christianity looks ridiculous.

Personally for the purpose of protecting people from themselves, that is killing themselves by non-biblical practice of purposely drinking poison or purposely taking up snakes(foolishly testing God) --- yes, I think it should be against the law. These people by purposely breaking the law indicates that they do not understand scripture, nor are they law abiding.

This is not a question of Obeying God vs Obeying the laws of man (Romans 13).


Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Deuteronomy 6:16 “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah.

Not all of them are Oneness. Consider this excerpt from a book entitled Serpent-Handling Believers, written by Thomas Burton:

Serpent handlers do, however, often divide themselves into two groups according to their interpretation of the Godhead and, subsequently, according to the name in which they are baptized. That difference centers upon two concepts, often referred to as "Trinity" and "Jesus Name": ( 1 ) The Godhead is made up of three entities. From this tenet a person is baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" according to Matthew 28:19. (2) There is "One God and Father of all" (Heb. 4:6), Jesus and the Holy Ghost being human and spiritual manifestations of God respectively. A person from this perspective is baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" according to Acts 2:38; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not considered to be names, unlike "Jesus." Variations on the second concept for the name employed in baptism are "Jesus" (omitting "Christ") and "the Lord Jesus." Other differences revolve around foot washing, the Lord's Supper, divorce and remarriage (called "double marriages"), and various other practices and interpretations of Scripture. Some of these differences occur within congregations as well as between churches. Some serpent-handling churches describe themselves as Pentecostal Holiness, but they are not members of any formal organization — they are independent. The term Holiness people is sometimes defined simply as "people living godly, holy lives," and Pentecostal as "anything that speaks in tongues and claims the Holy Ghost."
​

Full text: Full text of "Serpent-handling believers"

I agree that they do seem a tad bit ridiculous, but I believe a lot of denominations make Christians look ridiculous. Regarding the legality, I see no issue with people harming themselves or putting themselves in danger. If we are going to legislate against dangerous activities, then a lot of things would be illegal (drinking alcohol, tobacco products, etc.). And their disobedience to the law in regard to serpent handling is not really anti-Scriptural. Their beliefs are un-Biblical, but disobeying the laws of man in favor of the percieved laws of God is not wrong.

 

[Deadworm]

Serpent-handing is called a "sign" in Mark 16:17-18 and does not refer to the sort of accidental encounter that Paul experienced on (Acts 28:3-6). As such, it is a truly evil ploy to violate Scripture by putting God to the test. Also. it is justified only by the textually corrupt ending in Mark 16:9-20 that is missing in the earliest manuscripts and was invented by Aristo of Pella after 150 AD. As scholars recognize, the Greek of 16:9-20 has a radically different style that is incompatible with true Markan style. It is sad and ironic that fundamentalists who presume to have the highest view of Scripture choose to use such a corrupt Bible version.

 

[miknik5]

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 have information into this practice? What is the outcome after these practices occur. That is, if one is killed, how is this death handled? Who is responsible. And who will be held responsible?

Do you believe that we are accountable for the life blood of men?

 

[tstor]

Do you have information into this practice? What is the outcome after these practices occur. That is, if one is killed, how is this death handled? Who is responsible. And who will be held responsible?

Do you believe that we are accountable for the life blood of men?

Only what I have seen through recorded videos and my readings. If someone is killed then there is a proper funeral (ironically there are usually serpents at the funeral as well). They believe that God determines whether or not the serpent bites. They also believe that God will heal them if it is not their "time to go." So, the responsibility is on God's end I suppose.

 

[miknik5]

Only what I have seen through recorded videos and my readings. If someone is killed then there is a proper funeral (ironically there are usually serpents at the funeral as well). They believe that God determines whether or not the serpent bites. They also believe that God will heal them if it is not their "time to go." So, the responsibility is on God's end I suppose.

No it's not on GOD
HE sees

Not a sparrow falls without HIM
knowing

I'm not sure his those who have misrepresented GOD and tested HIS faithfulness will fare

But no. GOD knows our coming and going so this isn't hidden from HIM


I'm not sure HE considers this thing a "clean practice"

 

[tstor]

No it's not on GOD

I agree, but I am telling you their perspective.

 

[miknik5]

I agree, but I am telling you their perspective.

Which is what,

You haven't responded to my initial question of these elders.
Whether this practice is done to test one another's faith.

And now the current question, fear then us the outcome for the one who dies during this practice

Is hw then written off as faithless?

And what is the outcome for those personally connected to the victim?

Is the death of a "brother" or "sister" mourned?

Or is it. Proceed on to the next one?

 

[tstor]

Which is what,

You haven't responded to my initial question of these elders.
Whether this practice is done to test one another's faith.

And now the current question, fear then us the outcome for the one who dies during this practice

Is hw then written off as faithless?

And what is the outcome for those personally connected to the victim?

Is the death of a "brother" or "sister" mourned?

Or is it. Proceed on to the next one?

The practice is done because of what is written in Mark 16. They believe that God will not let the serpent bite them unless He will it. They also believe that they will be healed if bitten because the Lord will not let them die before it is their proper time.

No one is marked off as faithless simply because they are bitten.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I assume that there are probably no serpent-handling Christians on this forum,

Did any herpetologists reply ?

 

[miknik5]

If you know the good that you should do and do not do it, you sin

This, picking up venomous snakes...snakes which were placed in harms way by men for no other reason than to validate ones supposed position in CHRIST, does not qualify as good

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Serpent-handing is called a "sign" in Mark 16:17-18 and does not refer to the sort of accidental encounter that Paul experienced on (Acts 28:3-6). As such, it is a truly evil ploy to violate Scripture by putting God to the test. Also. it is justified only by the textually corrupt ending in Mark 16:9-20 that is missing in the earliest manuscripts and was invented by Aristo of Pella after 150 AD. As scholars recognize, the Greek of 16:9-20 has a radically different style that is incompatible with true Markan style. It is sad and ironic that fundamentalists who presume to have the highest view of Scripture choose to use such a corrupt Bible version.

Hi Deadworm, Why is Paul the only person in the NT Church who was bite by a snake?

Mark has two or three endings and the Mark 16:17-18 is a questionable text as to if it even is part of the Bible. I think some scholars believes the short ending is the correct one.

I am not sure from another post here, if I am happy or sad to learn that those who believe in the Trinity would engage in this.

Luke 10:19 speaks of the possibility, but it was not to the church in general.

"See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you."

Some Commentators see the text as figurative of religious leaders of the time.

At least to my knowledge, No Early Church Father speaks of Mark 16 signs.

The text is quoted in the Acta Pilati aka
Gospel of Nicodemus
which dates to around 376 AD. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Acta Pilati

They text does show up in
Apostolic Constitutions
which is a well known forgery.
CHURCH FATHERS: Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII

The earliest known quote of the text by someone in the Church was The Harmony of the Gospels (Augustine) CHURCH FATHERS: Harmony of the Gospels, Book III, Chapter 25 (Augustine)

NEW ADVENT: Search

However, no one in the early church taught that one should purposely pick up snakes or drink poison.

NEW ADVENT: Search

NEW ADVENT: Search

Around 387 AD,
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Holy Spirit, Book II (Ambrose) wrote: "

150. See, God set apostles, and set prophets and teachers, gave the gift of healings, which you find above to be given by the Holy Spirit; gave various kinds of tongues. But yet all are not apostles, all are not prophets, all are not teachers. Not all, says he, have the gift of healings, nor do all, says he, speak with tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:30 For the whole of the divine gifts cannot exist in each several man; each, according to his capacity, receives that which he either desires or deserves. But the power of the Trinity, which is lavish of all graces, is not like this weakness.

151. Lastly, God set apostles. Those whom God set in the Church, Christ chose and ordained to be apostles, and sent them into the world, saying: Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that shall believe and be baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe. In My Name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. You see the Father and Christ also set teachers in the Churches; and as the Father gives the gift of healings, so, too, does the Son give; as the Father gives the gift of tongues, so, too, has the Son also granted it.

152. In like manner we have heard also above concerning the Holy Spirit, that He too grants the same kinds of graces. For it is said: To one is given through the Spirit the gift of healings, to another various kinds of tongues, to another prophecy. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 So, then, the Spirit gives the same gifts as the Father, and the Son also gives them. Let us now learn more expressly what we have touched upon above, that the Holy Spirit entrusts the same office as the Father and the Son, and appoints the same persons; since Paul said: Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to rule the Church of God. Acts 20:28"
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Holy Spirit, Book II (Ambrose)

Not, even Ambrose wrote that one should purposely pick up snakes or drink poison.

Such a movement did not exist in the early church.

In fact, no one taught that practice would be signs of believers.

When you consider it was not even quoted until the late 300's and there is no record of anyone teaching that picking up snakes, nor drinking poison was in anyway the norm for Christians. Such is not likely a good thing to do today.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Not all of them are Oneness. Consider this excerpt from a book entitled Serpent-Handling Believers, written by Thomas Burton:

Serpent handlers do, however, often divide themselves into two groups according to their interpretation of the Godhead and, subsequently, according to the name in which they are baptized. That difference centers upon two concepts, often referred to as "Trinity" and "Jesus Name": ( 1 ) The Godhead is made up of three entities. From this tenet a person is baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" according to Matthew 28:19. (2) There is "One God and Father of all" (Heb. 4:6), Jesus and the Holy Ghost being human and spiritual manifestations of God respectively. A person from this perspective is baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" according to Acts 2:38; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not considered to be names, unlike "Jesus." Variations on the second concept for the name employed in baptism are "Jesus" (omitting "Christ") and "the Lord Jesus." Other differences revolve around foot washing, the Lord's Supper, divorce and remarriage (called "double marriages"), and various other practices and interpretations of Scripture. Some of these differences occur within congregations as well as between churches. Some serpent-handling churches describe themselves as Pentecostal Holiness, but they are not members of any formal organization — they are independent. The term Holiness people is sometimes defined simply as "people living godly, holy lives," and Pentecostal as "anything that speaks in tongues and claims the Holy Ghost."
​

Full text: Full text of "Serpent-handling believers"

I agree that they do seem a tad bit ridiculous, but I believe a lot of denominations make Christians look ridiculous. Regarding the legality, I see no issue with people harming themselves or putting themselves in danger. If we are going to legislate against dangerous activities, then a lot of things would be illegal (drinking alcohol, tobacco products, etc.). And their disobedience to the law in regard to serpent handling is not really anti-Scriptural. Their beliefs are un-Biblical, but disobeying the laws of man in favor of the percieved laws of God is not wrong.

Thanks
daniel

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Google

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. His precise words in his Against Heresies were: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (3.10.5; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 1:426). It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware of the verses in the middle of the second century. At any rate, his disciple, Tatian, included the verses in his Greek Diatessaron (having come down to us in Arabic, Italian, and Old Dutch editions) c. A.D. 170.

Third century witnesses include Tertullian, who died after A.D. 220, in his On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ch. 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584), Against Praxeas (ch. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and A Treatise on the Soul (ch. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206). Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his The Seventh Council of Carthage (Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Verses 15-18 in Greek and verses 15-19 in Latin are quoted in Part I: The Acts of Pilate (ch. 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. 2) (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 8:422,436,444-445). De Rebaptismate (A.D. 258) is also a witness to the verses. All seven of these second and third century witnesses precede the earliest existing Greek manuscripts that verify the genuineness of the verses. More to the point, they predate both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Fourth century witnesses to the existence of the verses include Aphraates (writing in A.D. 337—see Schaff and Wace, 1969, 13:153), with his citation of Mark 16:16-18 in “Of Faith” in his Demonstrations (1.17; Schaff and Wace, 13:351), in addition to the Apostolic Constitutions (5.3.14; 6.3.15; 8.1.1)—written no later than A.D. 380 (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 7:445,457,479). Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, quoted from the section in his On the Holy Spirit (2.13.145,151), On the Christian Faith (1.14.86 and 3.4.31), and Concerning Repentance (1.8.35; Schaff and Wace, 10:133,134,216,247,335). Didymus, who died A.D. 398, is also a witness to the genuineness of the verses (Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), as is perhaps Asterius after 341.

Patristic writers from the fifth century that authenticate the verses include Jerome, noted above, who died A.D. 420, Leo (who died A.D. 461) in his Letters (9.2 and 120.2; Schaff and Wace, 1969, 12:8,88), and Chrysostom (who died A.D. 407) in his Homilies on First Corinthians (38.5; Schaff, 1969, 12:229). Additional witnesses include Severian (after 408), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and Augustine (after 455). These witnesses to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 from patristic writers is exceptional.
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?

The evidence given does not have a single author of that period quoting the complete ending. The parts concerning the "signs" are highlighted. None of those authors taught in the places they quoted that one should purposely go out of their way to drink poison or pick up snakes. Nor did they teach that those signs follow all believers.

Why was Paul the only one who was bite by a snake? It was a special case for those who were shipwrecked as a witness.

 

[Kit Sigmon]

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'm originally from the "bible-belt" and from a state where that practice still goes on but it's not "advertised"... well unless it's in West Virginia, where it's not illegal.

The illegal part of it no doubt stemmed from children being bitten/dying, as the poisonous snakes are passed around during religious ceremonies...the snake-handlers hit around the early 1900's where I use to live and gradually spread to other states where education is lacking and jobs are scarce.
In some states it was deemed illegal in the 1940's...repeals changed it during the sixties and then it was overturned again...I believe it's illegal in six states? Sorry but it's been awhile since I've tracked the practice since I moved from my home state several years ago.

From my other findings on the matter of snake handling is the lack of health and liability insurance...those who have poisonous snakes often do not have such insurance coverage...not only that, few even have proper training to even keep such snakes, which results in snakes being improperly housed and improperly fed etc.
I should also mention that it's also a method used by snake handling preachers to prevent getting bitten by the snakes...abused/malnourished/weakened snakes
that are kept in overcrowded pens produce less potent venom.
The trick would be keeping the "new additions" apart but I've not found much on
that.
It's illegal to mistreat animals...including snakes.

Religious services...Not only is there handling of snakes, but such services also include drinking poison...which is also mentioned in Mark 16:17-18.

Uninsured....Treating someone who's been bitten by a poisonous snake can cost anywhere from fourteen thousand dollars to over a hundred thousand dollars...the largest chunk of the bill is for the antivenin which can set you back over eighty grand...much depends upon the amount of serum required to treat the patient.

The limited number of people who know about such services don't go around telling just any ol' body about it....I'm referring to the snake handling services that have been going on in certain states since it's introduction in the early 1900's.

I don't recall anything about the modern day churches that perform snake handling services having proper insurance either.
I also noted that snake handler preachers use poisonous snakes such as timber
rattlesnakes, copperheads and water moccasins...which would keep me away
from any such establishments that had them.

The Lacey Act makes it illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law. The Act also makes it illegal to possess wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation, foreign law or Indian tribal law.

More about reptiles and the Law... A Field Guide to Reptiles and the Law by
John P. Levell.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Wow, I was bitten by a water moccasin as a child with no effect.
I did not know they were posionious. I was visiting a Baptist Bible Camp.
Everyone there was in a panic and I still went out to play baseball.
When medical treatment showed up, I was running around in the outfield.
They had to chase me down to take me to the hospital.

 

[section9+1]

If you have studied God's word and the HS lives in you and you are faithful in church and with the brotherhood of believers, how could you be so stupid to think that a true expression of your belief is in picking up deadly serpents? That handling snakes is how you display your faith in God. You'd have to be a pure idiot to believe that kind of a lie. I'll pick up a deadly snake the day after I am unaffected by a good dose of strychnine. And I have no fear of snakes at all.

 

[Winken]

Wow, I was bitten by a water moccasin as a child with no effect.
I did not know they were posionious. I was visiting a Baptist Bible Camp.
Everyone there was in a panic and I still went out to play baseball.
When medical treatment showed up, I was running around in the outfield.
They had to chase me down to take me to the hospital.

Gulp!

 

[FrankDux]

I grabbed a snake cleaning ivy off my house the other day

Let out a shriek like a little girl

Last thing I was thinking about was dancing with it