The Bible does not teach Christians to practice snake handling as an act of worship, a proof of faith, or a test of spiritual power. That conclusion becomes clear when all the relevant passages are examined in context and when the textual issue surrounding Mark 16:9-20 is handled honestly. Some groups have treated snake handling as a visible sign of true belief, but that practice cannot be established from sound exegesis. Scripture never commands believers to pick up serpents. Scripture never presents snake handling as a church ordinance. Scripture never instructs elders, evangelists, or congregations to include venomous snakes in public worship. On the contrary, when the whole counsel of God is allowed to speak, the practice is shown to rest on a misuse of a disputed text and on a misunderstanding of the difference between divine protection and deliberate self-endangerment.

The first duty of a faithful interpreter is to ask not what a dramatic religious custom wishes a verse to mean, but what the biblical writer actually meant in context. That is especially important here because the passage most often used to defend snake handling appears in a section of Mark that has long been recognized as textually disputed. Even before one reaches the theological question, one must settle the textual question. A doctrine or ritual should never be built on a passage whose originality is doubtful, especially when the rest of the New Testament gives no command to practice it and no example of the church turning it into a repeated ceremony.

The Passage Most Often Cited

Those who defend snake handling usually appeal to Mark 16:17-18, where the longer ending says that certain signs would accompany believers, including speaking in new tongues, picking up serpents, and not being harmed if they drank deadly poison. Taken in isolation, and detached from the larger textual and canonical picture, those verses can be made to sound like a continuing badge of authentic Christianity. But isolation is the very problem. Scripture must interpret Scripture, and a disputed ending must not be treated as though it carries unquestioned authority equal to passages whose authenticity is not in doubt.

As the manuscript evidence summarized in your note demonstrates, the longer ending of Mark is absent from early and weighty witnesses and circulated in more than one form. That is why discussion of textual criticism is not a side issue here. It is central to the question. If Mark originally ended at 16:8, then Mark 16:9-20 cannot be the foundation for a church practice at all. The mention of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus matters because these witnesses show that the longer ending was not universally present in the earliest stream of transmission. The issue is not whether later Christians found the passage meaningful. The issue is whether Mark wrote it. If he did not, then no one has the right to impose snake handling on the church in the name of biblical fidelity.

Even if a person were to set aside the textual problem for the sake of argument, the passage still would not support a ritual of snake handling. The wording describes signs that would accompany the advance of the gospel; it does not command believers to stage dangerous encounters. There is a vast difference between a descriptive reference to divine preservation in extraordinary circumstances and a prescriptive instruction for regular worship. The same verses also mention drinking deadly poison without harm. No sane interpreter argues that Christians should therefore gather to swallow poison in order to prove their trust in God. The absurdity of that idea exposes the flaw in the snake-handling argument as well. A promise of divine protection in exceptional ministry conditions is not a command to manufacture danger.

The Difference Between Description and Command

The Bible frequently records events without commanding believers to repeat them. This is one of the most basic principles of interpretation. The Book of Genesis records polygamy, deception, violence, and many other human acts without endorsing them. The Book of Acts records special miracles connected with the spread of the gospel, yet the church is never told to imitate every event narrated there. A description tells us what happened. A command tells us what believers must do. Snake handling advocates blur that distinction and turn a disputed descriptive statement into a binding practice.

This confusion becomes even clearer when one asks a simple question: where do the apostles ever instruct congregations to handle snakes? The answer is nowhere. The New Testament contains teaching on prayer, baptism, the Lord’s Evening Meal, holiness, discipline, evangelism, marriage, church order, false teaching, the use of spiritual gifts in the first-century congregation, and the qualifications of overseers and ministerial servants. Yet it says nothing about collecting serpents for worship services. If snake handling were truly a sign of faithful Christianity for all generations, that silence would be inexplicable. The apostles were not vague men. When a practice was to be observed by the churches, they said so plainly.

First Corinthians 12:4-11 is especially important here. Even in the apostolic period, miraculous gifts were not possessed by every believer in the same way. The Holy Spirit distributed gifts according to His purpose in the early congregation. Not everyone spoke in tongues. Not everyone worked miracles. Not everyone had gifts of healing. Therefore, even the New Testament’s own teaching on miraculous activity rules out the idea that every true Christian must prove faith by performing extraordinary signs. Any system that says, “If you do not handle a serpent, you do not really believe,” contradicts the apostolic teaching on the varied distribution of gifts.

Paul and the Serpent on Malta

The clearest New Testament account involving a serpent is found in Acts of the Apostles 28:3-6. Paul was gathering sticks for a fire after the shipwreck on Malta when a viper fastened onto his hand. He did not seek out the snake. He did not build a ceremony around it. He did not invite others to watch him demonstrate superior faith. He simply shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. The islanders expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but Jehovah preserved him.

That event is decisive because it shows what divine protection from a serpent actually looks like in the New Testament. It was accidental, not ceremonial. It occurred in the course of hardship and service, not in a staged religious performance. It served as a witness to unbelievers, not as a repeated rite for believers. There is no indication that Paul then told the Maltese Christians, or any other congregation, to reproduce the event as a sign of true discipleship. In fact, to turn Acts of the Apostles 28:3-6 into a weekly ritual would be to distort the narrative beyond recognition.

The contrast with modern snake handling is striking. Paul was unexpectedly endangered while carrying out ordinary labor. Modern handlers deliberately create danger. Paul was preserved while serving Jehovah under difficult circumstances. Modern handlers often present self-endangerment as the very substance of worship. Paul did not tempt God. He trusted God in a moment of sudden peril. That is the biblical pattern. Trusting Jehovah when danger comes is faithfulness. Creating danger in order to force a display of protection is presumption.

Jesus Forbade the Testing of God

The strongest biblical argument against snake handling as a religious practice is found in the teaching of Jesus Himself. In Matthew 4:5-7, Satan tempted Jesus to throw Himself down from the temple, even quoting Scripture in an attempt to justify the act. The temptation was not openly atheistic. It was wrapped in religious language. It suggested that if Jesus truly trusted God, He should place Himself in danger and expect miraculous rescue. Jesus answered from Deuteronomy 6:16: “You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.”

That answer applies directly to snake handling. When a person deliberately seizes a venomous serpent in order to prove faith, he is not displaying obedience; he is testing God. He is demanding that Jehovah validate his chosen stunt. He is acting out the same basic error Satan urged upon Jesus: place yourself in needless danger and then expect divine intervention as proof of sonship or spiritual authenticity. Jesus rejected that pattern absolutely. No Christian may baptize presumptuous behavior in the language of faith.

This point also guards against a common emotional argument. Some claim that refusing to handle snakes shows fear rather than faith. But biblical faith is not reckless bravado. Biblical faith submits to what God has actually said. Noah showed faith by building the ark, not by jumping into the flood before Jehovah told him to do so. Abraham showed faith by obeying Jehovah’s call, not by inventing spectacular hazards to force a miracle. Jesus showed perfect faith by refusing Satan’s dare. Therefore, the refusal to handle snakes is not a lack of trust. In many cases, it is the very expression of trustful obedience.

Serpents in Scripture Are Not a Church Ordinance

From the beginning of Scripture, serpents are associated with danger, deception, curse, and judgment. The serpent in Genesis 3 is linked with Satan’s rebellion and the entrance of sin into human history. In Numbers 21:6, fiery serpents became instruments of judgment against Israel’s grumbling. In Psalm 58:4 and Ecclesiastes 10:11, the serpent is an image of danger that must be treated seriously, not casually. Jesus could use serpents metaphorically, as in Matthew 10:16, where He told His disciples to be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves,” but that metaphor does not establish a ritual any more than His references to sheep, wolves, or doves establish liturgical animal symbolism.

Some may appeal to Luke 10:19, where Jesus told the seventy that He had given them authority to tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy. But the context shows that this language speaks of kingdom authority in mission and victory over hostile spiritual opposition; it does not institute a public serpent-handling ceremony. The imagery is bound up with the disciples’ commissioned work and the subjection of demons, not with a test of bodily risk in a worship meeting. To wrench Luke 10:19 out of that context and convert it into a mandate for handling reptiles is another example of ignoring the meaning of the passage.

The Bible therefore treats serpents seriously. At times Jehovah may protect His servants from them. At times serpents serve as images of evil or judgment. At no point are they turned into sacramental objects for Christian devotion. The church is commanded to preach the gospel, make disciples, baptize, teach obedience to Christ’s commands, maintain holiness, and care for one another. It is never commanded to include snakes among the acts of gathered worship.

Signs in the Apostolic Age and the Purpose They Served

Hebrews 2:3-4 explains that the message of salvation “was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit.” Second Corinthians 12:12 speaks of “the signs of an apostle.” Those texts help place extraordinary manifestations in their proper framework. They were connected with the establishment and confirmation of the apostolic witness. They pointed beyond themselves to the truth of the gospel. They were not given as material for spectacle, manipulation, or religious theater.

That matters because snake handling reverses the biblical order. In the New Testament, signs serve the message. In snake handling circles, the sign often becomes the message. Attention shifts away from repentance, faith, holiness, and sound doctrine toward adrenaline, fear, and sensationalism. The center of gravity moves from Christ and His gospel to the human performer and the dangerous act. That is profoundly unhealthy. It confuses the nature of worship and invites people to measure spirituality by outward drama instead of by fidelity to the Word of God.

Even in the authentic miracle accounts of Scripture, Jehovah’s servants did not stage danger to produce amazement. Moses did not invent plagues for religious excitement. Elijah did not manipulate fire from heaven as entertainment. Jesus did not perform miracles to satisfy unbelieving demands for spectacle. In Matthew 12:38-39, He rebuked those who wanted a sign on their own terms. The biblical pattern is that Jehovah acts according to His will, for His purposes, and in harmony with His revealed Word. Man does not create hazardous situations and then demand a miracle as proof that his method has divine approval.

Worship Must Be Governed by Truth, Order, and Love

The gathered worship of Christians is not a place for reckless behavior. First Corinthians 14:26 teaches that everything in the assembly is to be done for edification. First Corinthians 14:40 adds that all things should be done “decently and in order.” Romans 12:1 calls believers to present their bodies as a living sacrifice in reasonable sacred service. None of those principles harmonizes with bringing venomous snakes into worship meetings and exposing people to grave bodily harm.

Love for fellow believers also forbids such a practice. First Peter 5:2-3 requires shepherds to care for the flock. Acts of the Apostles 20:28 places overseers under solemn obligation to pay attention to themselves and to all the flock. A shepherd does not prove courage by endangering the sheep. He proves faithfulness by feeding, guarding, and protecting them. When leaders normalize snake handling, they do the opposite. They create an atmosphere in which injury or death can be spiritualized, and that is a cruel misuse of authority.

This issue becomes even more serious when children, young converts, or emotionally vulnerable people are present. Pressure to conform can be intense in highly charged religious settings. What is presented as an act of faith can become coercion, manipulation, and spiritual intimidation. A practice that places consciences under unscriptural pressure and bodies under needless threat cannot be defended as Christian worship. The fruit of the Spirit includes self-control, not theatrical risk-taking. Christian maturity is shown in obedience, sound judgment, and steadfast endurance, not in courting death to impress a congregation.

Why Christians Must Reject Snake Handling

A Christian response to snake handling must therefore be firm, biblical, and clear. The church should reject it because it rests on a disputed textual foundation, because it misunderstands the difference between promise and command, because it confuses accidental preservation with deliberate testing, and because it violates Jesus’ own prohibition against testing Jehovah. It should also be rejected because it distorts the purpose of signs, undermines orderly worship, and endangers people made in God’s image.

The right response to passages about divine protection is not to invent a ritual of danger, but to trust Jehovah while obeying His Word. If danger comes in the course of faithful service, He is able to preserve His servants. If suffering comes, He is able to sustain them. The believer’s task is not to script dramatic episodes and demand miraculous outcomes. The believer’s task is to remain faithful, sober-minded, and obedient. True Christianity does not need serpents in the sanctuary. It needs truth in the pulpit, holiness in the congregation, courage in evangelism, and steadfast trust in Jehovah through all the ordinary and extraordinary pressures of life.

You May Also Enjoy

What Is the Historical and Biblical Account of Ahab and Jezebel?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS