of Snakes and Poison

I found myself engaged in (yet another) hermeneutical debate the other day, over at Hearts for Family. [Very interesting blog; fascinating connections to the whole pomo Christian debate.] I was defending against Primitivism (the notion that we must mirror everything we see described in the Bible) and in so doing was talking about the distinction we must make between genres within the Bible. Narrative, for example, must be understood and interpreted differently than other genres. In the process of conversation, one particular lady took issue with my contention. We discussed back and forth for a bit. Eventually I got around to using an actual example from Bible - the longer ending of Mark...

In the interested of keeping the original post on topic [since I've already drug it far enough away!], I'd like to recreate the last little bit (edited as necessary) and continue the conversation here, inviting my original debate partner and any one else to comment further.

So ... back to the longer ending of Mark, here's what I wrote on the other blog:

Certainly it's true that we can learn many principles from the Biblical narratives. But we dare not draw doctrine from them alone. Narrative can support doctrine or creed, but cannot bear the weight of such a load on its own.

Let me give a concrete example. Take the longer ending of Mark - the bit about handling snakes and drinking poison. There are those that say this narrative is prescriptive for us, that Christians today should be able (with enough faith) to pick up vipers and drink poison without being harmed. This is bad hermeneutics. The text is narrative, and therefore not so directly applicable.

There are, on the other hand, those that point out the narrative was referring specifically to the Apostles (all of whom are, of course, now dead) and that the narrative is therefore directly applicable to them but not us. In principle the text still has value and meaning for the Christ-follower today: God's ultimate control of the normal/natural order of things, His perfect provision, etc... But to make the claim that Christians today should be snake-handlers based upon the (narrative) longer ending of Mark is hermeneutical folly.

I'm in that second camp of people - don't ignore narrative or treat it as of secondary importance; do interpret narrative genre properly.


After posting that thought, I thought we'd found common ground. But she contended:

As for Mark 16:18, it's not a command, it's a promise. I've claimed it and I've seen it in action on the mission field. I've dealt with vipers and scorpions, even had to sleep in rooms with them. I've had to share a cup with someone whom I knew had a communicable disease. The Lord was faithful to His Word, as always, and I was protected.

I probably am not able to convince you that the narrative is a promise. But, my position on it remains unchanged because I've seen it in action. I've held onto it and believed it as a lifeline.

As my dad always told me, "A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with a theory."

---

So where do we go from here? What are the hermeneutical principles in question, and is any of this even all that important?

Obviously I think it is! There are a number of issues here I'd like to touch upon.

A) Source: I chose the longer ending of Mark for my example on purpose. Whether the text was even originally part of the Bible is highly debated. There is good internal evidence to suggest that Mark's Gospel actually ended at verse 8; that the remainder (the "longer ending") was added later. If that's the case (and it's at least 50% likely; by most estimates more), we have a serious hermeneutical problem. In fact, the only text in all of the Bible that is more doubted is 1 John 5:7 (you'll only find the debated words in the KJV). But we can't be sure one way or the other about the validity/originality of this text. At the very least we should tread cautiously upon it, right?

B) Context: Here are the relevant surrounding verses -

Then he [Jesus] appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.

A few things to note:

1) The message was preached by Jesus directly to His apostles; whether this message is directly applicable to us today is a question that must be addressed.
2) Jesus gave them this message to rebuke them for their own failure to believe the story of His resurrection - it seems very specific to the Apostles.
3) The only part of the message that is recorded elsewhere in (less source-debated) texts is the "go and preach" command. Since the snakes and poison part is anomalous to the rest of Scripture, it warrants special consideration.
4) The historical reference to what evidence these converts will give might be limited to the period of the Apostles - it's impossible for us to say with certainty that Jesus wants us to understand that these signs will be for all generations.
5) The point of the signs is revealed in the last verse - it was to confirm the message that Jesus had just given them. Again, whether this confirmation process is applicable to us today is a subject of debate, not assumption.

C) History: Did you notice the comment above about the difference between experience and theory? It's applicable, only not in the way you might think. If this "snake and poison" text is in fact a promise to all generations of Christ-followers, we should expect to find church history peppered with references. But we don't. Search the halls of church history and you'll find that a) there are almost no references to Christians handling snakes or drinking poison for about 1,900 of the last 2,000 years, and b) those few references we do have (outside of the last 100 years or so) almost always come from the lips of heretics. For whatever reason, we had about 95 generations of Christians come and go with nary ever a whisper of this "snake and poison" stuff. Only in the last 5 generations or so has it shown up at all, and even then in severely limited numbers.

So in reality, my interpretation of this "snakes and poison" text fits with the experience of the historical church; to posit its direct application to us today is merely a theory.

D) Genre: What exactly are the Gospels, anyway? They aren't just history, nor just prophecy ... what are they? Scholars have long debated this question, but the best answer (I think) is to say that Gospel literature is a narrative account crafted and ordered to make a main spiritual point. John's Gospel is pretty clear on this: John appears to have taken the historical accounts of Jesus and pieced them together in such a way as to prove that Jesus is God. His Gospel doesn't follow along in chronological order, he re-orders events to serve this higher literary purpose. The other (Synoptic) Gospels seem to fit the same concept.

It is therefore difficult at best to take descriptions of things happening in the Gospels and make them directly applicable to us today unless something in the text warrants doing so. (Broad-audience imperatives fit this exception, for example.) But the Gospels were not written to describe the normal Christian experience. They were written to describe the most abnormal of all times in human history - the time when God literally walked among us!

---

So in trying to interpret this "snakes and poison" text we have the following bits of information at our disposal:

a) It may not have even been in the Bible originally, and
b) the context is the ministry of the Apostles, and
c) virtually no one in all of church history has seen it as a promise to us, and
d) it's contained in Gospel genre.

Therefore, by far the most compelling interpretation of this text must include the notion that it is not directly applicable to us today - it's not a universal promise.

Your thoughts?

Hatushili

PS: I guess I could've called this "Even More Thoughts on Hermeneutics" to go with this one and this one, eh?