Christian Practice and Poisonous Snakes

Partly this comes from a sequence of events in my life:

1. A few weeks ago, close to bedtime, there's a special on snakes--I think on PBS. One segment is on the "snake handlers"--Christian church-goers, concentrated in the rural South, who handle poisonous snakes as part of an "enthusiastic" church service. There's probably music, dancing, emotional preaching, even speaking in tongues--then handling the snakes. There are occasional deaths, but many believers say they have been bitten many times without being killed. (It can't just be snakes; it has to be "serpents," or poisonous snakes).

2. As I prepare my class on Religion in American Con Law, I Google "snake-handlers." It turns out they are pretty firmly in the Pentecostal tradition, and they appeal to the Gospel of Mark, Ch. 16, v. 14-18. These are apparently the last words Jesus speaks to the 11 more or less faithful apostles, after his crucifixion and resurrection.

Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who has faith and is baptized shall be saved, but he who has no faith shall be condemned. And these are the miracles that will ensue for those that have faith: in my name they will cast out evil spirits; they will speak in strange tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands; and if they drink poison, it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands on the sick and they will be well.

(This is the Rieu translation (Penguin); the Revised English says "if" believers handle snakes or drink deadly poison, but I'm pretty sure that's cheating).

So there is a scriptural authority for snake-handling--as much, perhaps, as for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist--that the bread actually becomes the flesh, and the wine actually becomes the blood, of Jesus. This belief is supported by John 6, 48 ff. Of the other Gospels, Matthew and Mark indicate that only in the Last Supper was this literally the case; Luke I believe makes no connection between bread and wine, on the one hand, and the flesh and blood of Christ on the other.

My main point for class was that snake-handling is against the law in many of the 50 states, and the federal courts have upheld such legislation; but the law is probably never enforced. If the local sheriff is not a snake-handler himself or herself, he or she probably thinks that everyone who does so, chooses to do so freely. Indeed all indications are that the authorities in the snake-handling congregations repeatedly warn people that this is dangerous, and they might not want to do it.

3. So what would an authentic Christian worship service look like? Faith healing, like some of the TV evangelists? Speaking in tongues? (Some of the old commentaries suggest this just means Christian missionaries will learn local languages with no trouble--an extremely useful gift in their trade). Exorcism? Taking arsenic? Snake handling? Of course some commentators have been concerned that the faithful would take this too literally--they say not all believers, but some, will have the ability to perform miracles in a way that is reminiscent of Christ himself; this will be for the benefit of those with no faith or weak faith, not for the community of the faithful assembling on the Sabbath. Again, possibly directed mainly at missionaries. (There is an episode in Acts where Paul is bitten by a snake, pulls it off, kills it, and survives--greatly impressing the local unbelievers. Perhaps that was enough of a demonstration of that particular miracle).

4. The Higher Criticism may also come to the rescue. The oldest versions of Mark don't seem to include verses 9 ff of Ch. 16.

The verses appended by a later editor clearly attempt to harmonize the ending of Mark with the endings of Matthew and Luke. Here, the editor wanted to make sure that the "Great Commission" and the post resurrection appearences were included in Mark. She or he saw their absence as a possible source of confusion- so she or he clarified by adding them in!

If it weren't for these "added" verses, Mark would include no reference to anything Jesus said or did after his death and resurrection. Some of the "addition" is more or less standard advice as to what one must do in order to be a Christian--above all, believe in the Gospels and be baptized.

One student in my class said she is Pentecostal, and she has never heard of snake-handling.

Here's support for the view that the "tongues" in Mark are merely foreign languages; other passages elsewhere in the New Testament seem to refer to "charismatic" tongues.

Sun Mar 6, 2005 9:19 am MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

Christian Practice and Poisonous Snakes