Does Mark 16:18 support the practice of snake handling in religious ceremonies? Text of Mark 16:18 “… they will pick up snakes with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.” Grammar and Syntax: Descriptive, Not Imperative The Greek verb ἀροῦσιν (“they will pick up”) is future indicative, not an imperative command. It foretells what will occur, not what believers are ordered to do. The same grammatical form is used for “they will lay their hands on the sick,” yet no one argues that every worship service must include a healing line. The passage forecasts divine protection as believers carry out the Great Commission (Mark 16:15), not a liturgical rite. Context within the Longer Ending of Mark Verses 9–20 summarize post-resurrection appearances and apostolic signs. Each sign counters a specific missionary danger of the first century: (1) exorcisms in pagan territories, (2) xenoglossy for cross-cultural evangelism, (3) lethal hazards such as snakes and poisons, and (4) rampant disease. The passage parallels the Great Commission ending of Matthew 28 by promising power and protection, not by prescribing worship choreography. Early Manuscript Evidence The two earliest extant uncials (𝔐 01 Sinaiticus, 𝔐 03 Vaticanus) end at 16:8, yet the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (≈99 %) include vv. 9-20. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.10.5, c. A.D. 180) quotes 16:19 verbatim; Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. A.D. 170) weaves the longer ending into its harmony; and Codex W (4th/5th cent.) contains it. Internal vocabulary and style link the section to early apostolic preaching, and no doctrinal discrepancy arises. Even if one hesitates over authenticity, the same principle appears elsewhere (Luke 10:19; Acts 28:3-6). Patristic Witness to Interpretation Early writers never treat Mark 16:18 as a ritual mandate. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Bede cite the verse as evidence of God’s providential care during mission, not as a church ordinance. No conciliar decree, creed, or historic confession commends ceremonial snake handling. Biblical Precedent: Acts 28 and Divine Protection When Paul was gathering wood on Malta, “a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand … but he suffered no harm” (Acts 28:3-5). The event is accidental, not sought. Paul does not co-opt the snake for worship; he continues serving, and God sovereignly prevents injury. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Scripture Narrative or predictive texts can illustrate principles without binding every believer to duplicate the circumstances. The Red Sea crossing (Exodus 14) and fire-proofing in Babylon (Daniel 3) are descriptive; no one erects fiery furnaces in church to reenact them. Likewise, Mark 16:18 describes God’s ability to safeguard His messengers but offers no liturgical template. The Prohibition Against Testing God Jesus rejects deliberately courting danger: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Matthew 4:7, citing Deuteronomy 6:16). Provoking lethal risk to prove piety contradicts Christ’s own model and Moses’ warning. Snake-handling ceremonies invert that principle by manufacturing the very peril from which the text promises protection. Historical Church Practice From Pentecost through nineteen centuries of global Christianity, formal snake handling is absent. The phenomenon surfaces only in early 20th-century Appalachian holiness congregations, influenced by George Hensley (c. 1910). Its novelty alone argues against apostolic origin. Theological Purpose of Sign Gifts Hebrews 2:3-4 reports that God bore witness “by signs, wonders, and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will” . Paul calls such phenomena “the signs of an apostle” (2 Corinthians 12:12). Their primary function authenticated the gospel’s launch, analogous to foundation stones (Ephesians 2:20). As the canon closed and the church spread, the need for that specific attestation waned; Scripture, not spectacle, now anchors faith (2 Peter 1:19). Practical and Pastoral Considerations 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 reminds believers their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit; recklessness is poor stewardship. Governmental studies of Appalachian serpent-handling congregations document dozens of fatalities since 1910—outcomes directly opposed to the promised protection. Where authentic apostolic power is absent, presumption brings harm. Conclusion Mark 16:18 predicts that, should deadly serpents threaten Christ’s emissaries, God can neutralize the danger. The verse neither commands nor commends ritual snake handling. It is descriptive, situational, and protective—never prescriptive, programmatic, or performative. To transform it into a worship ordinance misreads the grammar, ignores immediate context, violates the prohibition against testing God, departs from historic practice, and imperils life rather than glorifying the Life-Giver. |
    |