Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally?

The problem with this question is that like so many other challenges to the Bible, the challenger has a specific way of understanding the verse being challenged, and is likely to hold onto it through endless attempts to give the orthodox understanding of it. You are sure it is saying that ALL Christians ALWAYS will exhibit these immunities to dangers, and that since all obviously don't, the passage is false. I don't relish having to argue with you about that meaning of it through 300 posts of a thread.I don't see the passage as promising anything but the occasional manifestation of God's power as needed to protect those who took the gospel into the world, no promise that ALL believers would have that kind of protection. The apostolic generation exhibited many powers for the purpose of propagating the gospel that gradually fell away as the churches got established. The apostle Paul is reported in the Book of Acts to have been bitten by a poisonous snake and not been harmed, but I think this is the only fulfillment of the Mark passage given in scripture. As Matthew Henry states (below), however, there are fulfillments documented in the history of the early Church. I figured that wouldn't be enough to answer you so I looked up the passage in a few commentaries until I found one that is thorough enough to be an answer (Matthew Henry below), and even then he doesn't make much of the reference to poison, though he says more about the other promises. Other commentaries on the verse (I checked three others) very briefly acknowledge that these things happened to the apostolic generation, as they faced many dangers in the greater world they were sent into, but they don't seem to treat it as anything needing a more thorough discussion, such as you are asking for.Note: NONE of the commentaries doubts the authenticity of the passage, to answer jar; and as discussed on another thread, the majority of extant ancient texts contain the passage, more than 600 to 2, which also authenticates it.Here is Matthew Henry on the subject:

The signs and wonders were necessary in the pagan cultures that were completely in the dark about any claims to THE God of Hosts, being in spiritual bondage to a pantheon of lesser deities. Our culture, on the other hand, is gospel-saturated, though the gospel is attacked by its many enemies and distorted even among its supposed friends, and misrepresented by the Benny Hinns and Prosperity Gospel charlatans.I can see God bringing mercy to the confused in this culture, however, if enough of us seek it, but I can also see God saying, Look, you've had the gospel in America since the Mayflower, if anyone has a sincere desire to understand it there are opportunities galore -- this generation of vipers will not be given a sign beyond what you already have in abundance.OR, who knows, God might consider the darkness to have overtaken America to such a depth that He'd think it useful to provide a miracle or two. But if it doesn't happen, it's not as if you'd never heard the gospel

I agree. Of course this is only a promise to protect the believers in the process of taking the gospel into a dangerous world where they may need special powers and protections, not a cheap magic trick that would be tempting God if any of us tried it.

But we ALWAYS have His only-begotten Son, who has said He will be with us always, even to the end of the world. What has been promised will never be taken away from those who believe.God is sparing with His signs and wonders, uses them exactly as He thinks necessary for His purposes. One of His purposes is that He wants us to believe His preachers -- His witnesses of all kinds -- and not need visible proof of everything. I keep pointing to the passage about Thomas who refused to believe the other disciples that Jesus had risen from the tomb. Jesus went to him and showed him his wounds, and Thomas believed and worshiped HIm as his Lord and God, but in that same passage Jesus gently admonished him about his need for material proof: Jhn 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, 'Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.'" Not at all. He is involved with His believers all the time, in every age, no less now than ever, and anyone who isn't aware of His interventions is very likely not His -- at least not yet.

So the gospel came even earlier. Great. It's been here since the beginning is the point.

There are always frauds. That doesn't mean there are not true men of God also. I could probably personally name dozens in America with a little exertion, whose books or articles I've read, or sermon tapes I've heard. And that means there must in reality be many more. I'm not asking you to trust anybody without knowing a lot about them. Took me years to find a pastor whose teaching I consider the best. Well that's a straw man for sure. I'd never advocate such a thing. The attitude is, yes. He CAN certainly give such evidence but if He chooses not to for reasons of His own and you stubbornly refuse to investigate the avenues He HAS provided, that's going to be YOUR fault in the end, not His.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-27-2005 12:37 AM

OK, have it your way. You insist on YOUR meaning of "literal" (which I've never used to describe my own beliefs by the way, often having complained about Bible challengers' insisting on a kind of "literal" meaning that orthodox Christianity doesn't accept)and YOUR meaning of "interpretation" which allows you to deny that you are interpreting,and YOUR reading of the passage whether it's YOUR meaning of what "literal" means or YOUR meaning of what "allegorical" means,and that's what I knew you'd do.You insist that the snake handler cultists read it "literally" correctly rather than the mainstream church, even though others here have told you they are wrong because that is tempting God,and there's no arguing with you at all.You win.Have a good day.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-27-2005 11:14 AM

quote:

---

I look at the passage from Mark 16 about what believers will be able to do, and if I read it the same way I read the creation story, I should think that believers will be able to drink any deadly thing without harm, should be able to heal the sick by the laying on of hands, etc., and that these signs are meant to be evidence to unbelievers that the Lord is with them.

​

So, am I correct in assuming that your definition of taking the bible "literally" means that sometimes you take it at face value, such as with the creation stories, but sometimes you do some interpretation and adding to the text?

---

I've never said a word about taking the Bible "literally." That's completely your notion. It's to be read in context comparing each part with each other part. You are ignoring the context. The context is the spreading of the gospel, "Go ye into all the world..." Historically the first evangelists DID experience the powers predicted as Matthew Henry noted. There are reports that they STILL do as a matter of fact in some remote parts of the world where missionaries have taken the gospel, but no longer in the "civilized" world any more as the gospel has been preached here -- although the Charismatics claim it's still going on here. However, I've been in their groups and it seems to me there's very little of it that is even possibly authentic.Speaking of adding to the text, it is you who have added the idea of "all" believers. "Orthodox" means "correct," or "authorized." The churches I'm referring to embrace most of all the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms back to the early Church. Most orthodox/traditional/Bible-believing churches compare many versions of the Bible to get at the best rendering of any passage, though some prefer the KJV or NKJV and some prefer the NASB as a rule I've personally observed. You are reading into it the idea of "all" believers. "Signs will follow them" is far from suggesting "all" and in the context of the WHOLE Bible these powers are clearly the same as the charismatic gifts which are are explicitly said not to be given to everyone but one here, one there, for specific purposes. Tongues, healings, miracles are all listed on the lists of charismatic gifts. And how is that different from reading it literally correctly as I just said? It is you who have misread it as you ignore the context. You ignore the context of the sending out of the first apostles to preach to the pagan world of the time; you ignore the Biblical prohibition against tempting God; you ignore the Biblical context of the specificity of the charismatic gifts etc etc etc. ====No, he simply didn't expect the reader to be so tunnel-visioned or literal minded, but would understand that he wouldn't teach something out of context of the meaning of the entire Bible. Every relevant context for every statement doesn't need to be spelled out or the Bible would be a hundred times bigger than it is. Preachers may spend years preaching on a single book of the Bible because there is so much background and context and implications of it verse by verse that relate to it. NO verse in the Bible stands by itself apart from the rest of the Bible. As I said, you win.

Except it ISN'T my meaning against her meaning. My meaning is the meaning assigned by the historical Church, you know, millions of people.

Yeah it IS extremely silly of you to think you can decide the meaning of a text that you don't believe in or care a fig about, same as Ms. Schrafinator, against the understanding of centuries of believers in it.

Show ONE place where I've given an interpretation of a Koranic passage except to show where they've falsified the Bible.

I mentioned this earlier but it needs emphasis. Focusing on poison led me to forget just how much scripture itself shows the fulfillment of Mark 16. Others here have given the scripture of Paul's not being harmed by a poisonous snake. Matthew Henry, the 18th century commentator I quoted earlier, says not being harmed by drinking poison is something reported in the history of the early church.There are many healings and miracles reported in the Book of Acts, not all by the original apostles, but some by subordinates who were also evangelizing.The whole report ought to get across what the Mark passage referred to: not ALL but SOME, according to the Holy Spirit, had SOME gifts. Their purpose was to establish the divine source of the Church in the pagan world. The "gift of miracles" should cover surviving poison. "Tongues" and "healings" are also specifically listed as gifts of the Holy Spirit. Specifically about the gift of tongues as prophesied in Mark 16: We have these reports in scripture now, reports of the supernatural manifestations among the early believers -- that's why they are not being done any more. As I argued earlier in this thread, Jesus said we are to believe what we are told about Him and His work and not demand to see in order to believe.

Oh yes it means what it says. I finally got it sorted out in Message 59It always means what it says, but you have to take it in context and you can't assume you can tell what it means unless you know the context.Believers are a varied bunch with different levels of knowledge, that's all.

It's you.

The Bible is always to be read with reference to the rest of it. That's context. If something isn't clear in one place, another place may illuminate it. Parts of Genesis ARE illuminated by later passages. Jesus' referring to the book gives it extra validity; the Book of Revelation tells us who the snake in Eden really was for instance; Jesus' death on the cross brings home the meaning of the promise of the Seed who would crush the head of the serpent; it also gives meaning to Abraham's being called to sacrifice Isaac and then being freed from having to.You read the idea of "all" into the Mark passage that is not there, and reading the passages I just quoted shows that it was not intended -- the signs will follow them, but one here, one there as God decrees, not all having all for all time. And it is further emphasized in the later passages that the signs are for the unbelievers, certainly the entire pagan world of the time. In a formerly Christian nation why should God see the need for them?