May 5, 2011
One more thought from Mark 16, then on to another book. Any Suggestions?
These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe. They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed. Mark 16:17-18
I have a problem with these verses; we clearly and easily accept 3 out of the 5 miraculous demonstrations or “signs” that are promised to accompany those who believe – but we even more clearly and easily reject the other two. To be clear, these are the five “signs” that will accompany those who believe: 1) cast out demons, 2) speak in new languages (tongues), 3) handle snakes, 4) safely drink poison, and 5) heal the sick. Why do we so easily accept numbers 1,2, and 5, but reject 3 and 4? There are two significant answers. (Well, maybe three – we all hate snakes, so it’s easy to ignore that one!)
I spent my graduate study years in south central Kentucky, which, back then, and maybe still today, had a number of active congregations that practiced handling snakes, and drinking poison, as acts (or proofs) of faith. They were small groups, and quite remote, but they believed and practiced all 5 of these “signs”. Should we? Why don’t we?
Here is the first answer. The oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark that exists today do not include or contain the last 11 verses; 9-20. They have either been lost, or didn’t originally exist, and the last 11 verses were added later by scholars or scribes who thought the chapter ended too abruptly. Granted, the oldest copies of the NT that exist are about 150 years after Jesus, but it is dangerous to build a theology or practice from scriptures that are so unique. I’m not saying that we should cut them out or ignore them completely, but I just wouldn’t want to build an entire theological system on some verses that may or may not be original, or may or may not actually have come from Jesus. The story of the woman caught in adultery from John 8 is another example; that story does not exist in the oldest copies of John’s Gospel that exists today. Can we just ignore or remove the story? No, but neither should we build out whole theological foundation from that or this passage. That is what makes the whole handling of snakes so interesting, and leads to the second answer. You are probably thinking, well, why do we still practice speaking in tongues and casting out demons, and healing folks, but we don’t handle snakes or drink poison, except in rare situations in small sects of small churches?
The second answer is one of the most important principles of scripture interpretation – “let scripture interpret scripture”. This is what I mean. Let the clearer passages inform the less clear, let the multiple mentions of scripture have weight over those things mentioned fewer times, and in this case; if something only appears once, and in a portion of scripture that may not be original…then it’s probably best not to try and build some theological tower from the spurious source. See my point? The fact that we still practice tongues, exorcism and healing, and ignore snake handling and drinking poison, is because there are many other places in scripture where the three are commonly accepted, practiced, even commanded by Jesus – but nowhere else in the Bible do we see or hear or find Jesus or the apostles espousing that we handle snakes and drink poison. There is a story of Paul being bitten accidently by a poisonous snake, in Acts 28:3, but not as an act of worship or “sign” of belief. It’s a great story, but I don’t think it was intended to inform us on the practice of snake handling as an act of worship.
I know this post is rather theological and not very practical for daily application, but I thought it a good teaching point, and wanted to make it before we leave Mark. Anyway; just be careful how you build your theological, even Biblical life. Make sure that what you believe, and how you live are consistent with the “whole” of the Biblical record, and not based on one little reference. Stick with Jesus, and I’m sure you can be healed from a poisonous snake bite or accidental ingestion of poison – just don’t press your luck nor make it part of your weekly Sunday worship – just my opinion, and I might be wrong – but I don’t think so! Ha!

May 4th, 2011
Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died. Mark 16:7
I was taken with the two words in the middle of this verse: “including Peter”. What an interesting and profoundly humane thing for this young man/gardener/angel/spirit/Jesus to say to these shocked and awed women. This being – let’s just call him an angel to make it easier – was very pointed in his instructions, to include Peter, in the declaration of their discovery that Jesus was not dead in the tomb, but alive in the world! Why this special 2 word ‘blessing of inclusion’ reserved for Peter? Hadn’t all the other disciples also abandoned and run away at their moment of gravest decision? Hadn’t they all stayed back, observing from afar the mock trial, spurious beating, inhumane treatment of their ‘supposed’ friend and savior, Jesus? Yes – so what made this angel so insistent that Peter be included in this awesome address intended for all the disciples – but be sure to include Peter?
Well, he was the only one who cocksurely declared that he would never abandon and forsake their Lord. He was the only one who “swore” in front of a young simple peasant girl that he never knew Jesus. “Never knew” that is a pretty strong renunciation. He was the only disciple who actually denied Jesus 3 times before the cock crowed in the early morning hours – and when it did – the guilt and weight of what exactly Peter had done – must have flooded his mind, memory and heart. He must have been feeling especially responsible for betraying and abandoning his master – and must have been feeling a bit more “outside” the rest of the scared and trembling disciples – now gathered in hiding to plan their get away from Jerusalem before the fate of their Master became their own. “Including Peter”…I really like that!
It makes me think that my denials, my swearing, my rejections, my betrayals…might all be forgiven; that I might be “included” in Jesus’ forgiveness, that I might still be “included” in the circle of His followers, that I might still be “included” in the future that God had planned while the past was still so fresh and painful in their minds. We are all “included”, when it comes to God’s grace, and for that I am profoundly thankful.
I also wonder about the account in John’s gospel of Peter and the disciples fishing early in the morning not many days after the resurrection, when Jesus “appears” on the shore cooking breakfast. When the tired fishermen return to this Messiah cooked breakfast, Jesus specifically asks Peter 3 times if he loved Jesus! Do you suppose those 3 different questions in any way relate to the 3 pronounced denials expounded not that many days earlier? Maybe, but Peter got the answer right this time, and not 40 days later, filled with the Holy Spirit and power he preached his first sermon and 3000 people lined up to get saved – and the whole of the Christian Church was born – I’m sure glad Jesus “included” Peter…and me too!

May 3rd, 2011
Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid his body. Now go and tell his disciples, including Peter, that Jesus is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you before he died[/i ] . Mark 16:6-7
This ends Mark’s gospel. Each of the 4 gospels conclude with a “resurrection” story. And one of the most interesting things about those stories is how different they are. Each of them contains the most basic elements; the women going to the tomb first, the person (angel) who greets them, the arranged grave cloths, and the fear/awe/trembling follower’s running back to the gathered disciples, hiding behind closed doors.
There are a couple items of interest in these details. Many folks for many years have rejected the claims of Jesus, because they do not have room in their world view for any concept of the resurrection – dead people are dead – they don’t come back to life; ‘when you are dead – you are dead’. Most of those believe that these gospel resurrection accounts are fabricated myths, postulated by a group of devious disciples to perpetuate the person of Jesus, and trick the masses into believing Jesus was/is alive! (Not sure why they would want to do this if they knew different – but it’s a theory.) The accounts of the resurrection given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, all give silent and unwitting proof to the actual physical resurrection of Jesus – here is why I believe this.
If the disciples were going to perpetuate this untruth, they certainly would not have sent women to the tomb first, to be the first witnesses. Even though Jesus did more to elevate the status of women than any person in history till that time; (maybe ever) women still did not retain much authority or credibility in that culture. If you were going to try and foist a lie on an unbelieving society – you certainly wouldn’t use as your initial witnesses, a group or class of people (women) who had about as much status as cattle in that culture. The fact that each story contains a similar account of said women being the first witnesses, actually “proves” to us that this story is more likely true! If they were making it up – they would have sent some more “worthy” witnesses.
The second “proof” if you will – is the fact that these 4 different accounts are so different! Read all 4 of the accounts at one sitting some time, even try and make a list of each of the different elements some authors include, and some apparently neglect or leave out. It is quite remarkable, and many people use those differences to discount the validity of the story. I think they prove just the opposite! If the disciples were fabricating this falsity – don’t you think they would have worked a bit harder to get their story straight? People who were about to hang their lives on the lie of the resurrection, might insure a better, more consistent, seemingly more accurate accounting of the story. But these 4 gospel recorders took no pains to harmonize their accounts, they just wrote what they remembered, or saw, or saw fit to include to fulfill their different purposes – and let the details fall where they may! It may initially seem haphazard, but upon further review, might also stand as a silent or unintended “proof” to the validity of the resurrection – that and the fact that few people are willing to die for a lie, and almost all of the disciples were martyred for their faith in the succeeding years following this early morning empty tomb encounter. Makes you wonder huh?