Comments on: Handling Snakes and Drinking Poison

By: Michael Reed

Michael Reed — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:52:04 +0000

The real problem with these verses, is the idea that this taking up of serpents and drinking deadly things is a command of some sort, or a test of faith. I believe Jesus said, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”, when Satan suggested that Jesus leap from the pinnacle of the temple to prove His identity as the Messiah. No, what this is, is a promise of protection for the child of God in certain cases, when in the employ of his duties to the Lord. As for the poison, I’m not sure of any reference for it being fulfilled, but if you remember, Paul took up a serpent, on Miletus, which bit him, and the natives, expecting him to swell up and die, were amazed that he just shook off the beast and felt no harm. This was Paul’s identifying proof of his apostleship, if you will. There is no need to believe that it will happen to everyone-it was fulfilled in Paul. But, for all we know, it has happened many times since then, as has the poison, for the Lord is able to protect to the uttermost. So, really, the problem only arises when we believe these things are commands, rather than promises-it’s foolish to tempt God by “proving” your faith and playing with deadly things.
As for verse 16, the meat of the matter is in the second half. See, it is the faith that brings us to Christ, and baptism follows it. But notice that it is those who believe not that are damned. Baptism is an initial act of obedience, like the Ethiopian eunuch, but not an aspect of salvation.

By: Josh Rives

Josh Rives — Fri, 25 May 2007 14:03:21 +0000

Very well said Brian!

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 25 May 2007 05:14:23 +0000

Is it not logical that the longer you dig the closer you get to the originals? It’s not when you find the manuscript, it’s the date of the manuscript found. We do know that manuscripts were copied, so the earlier the manuscript the more accurate the text. The more time digging and discovering legitimate texts of holy scripture give us a more accurate Bible. Also, extra-biblical discoveries that give insight into the culture will help us gain a better understanding of the literary styles and idioms of the day, which help clarify our translation from the original languages into modern English. It’s ironic that some who argue in favor of text that translate from manuscripts further from the original, think they’re defending the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when in reality these manuscripts have errors of additions by uninspired transcribes. Their defense is for fallible men and not inspired writers. A great confidence we have in the infallible word or God is that with thousands of copies there is no disagreement of any significance.

By: Josh Rives

Josh Rives — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:56:40 +0000

I guess this comes down to your idea of accuracy in the Scripture. Do you consider the writings inspired in the original text or do you think that every person throughout history who copied the Scriptures was also inspired? I think the latter is taking a big leap, but if you are willing to allow others, who had no connection to the original writings, add to Scripture, then I suppose our doctrines deviate at that point.

As for the “all of the sudden” decision that it should be excluded, here is a quote from the above article:

Eusebius, who lived in the late 3rd and early 4th century, stated that he believed that the verses did not appear in any accurate manuscripts.

By: Leah

Leah — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:42:53 +0000

How very convenient that if one questions something in the true word of god, inspired by the holy spirit, that it can be dismissed as, “Oh, well, that wasn’t supposed to be included. This person never intended that passage to be in the true book of the lord.” Let’s see, just how many other passages that were written by man but inspired by the holy spirit weren’t supposed to be in the bible? If this book was written within let’s say, 70 years of Jesus’s death and has been studied and rewritten and rewritten and studied some more, why after 2000 years is this passage still in the bible but now all of a sudden isn’t supposed to be there? Again, very convenient!