Question on Bible Interpretation (Mark 16:17-18)

I saw the news on the snake-handler who died of a bite yesterday [http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201205290190].

I do not want to discuss that topic, but looking at the Scripture associated with it raised a general question I have. First, here are the Bible verses used by some to justify literally handling snakes. (I do not think a good case can be made for literal snake handling.)

Mark 16:17-18 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

This triggered a remembrance of a few recent in-person discussions I have had with others on correctly interpreting the Bible. The statement is frequently made by conservative believers and Bible scholars that we understand how to correctly interpret the Bible. What is metaphor is metaphor, history is history, poetry is poetry, and narrative is narrative. The assumption is that the type of literature and its interpretation is obvious. I hear this repeated so often it is basically considered to be a law.

But this passage in Mark presents a problem. If we interpret "picking up serpents" as figurative, then doesn't that require the remaining phrases to be figurative as well? Which means Jesus was not literally saying the disciples would cast out demons or heal the sick. It doesn't seem proper to me that we can pick and choose, slice and dice.

Maybe my assumption is wrong. My assumption is that Jesus would not offer a jumbled list of figurative and literal phrases and leave us to "interpret" it all. It makes more sense to me, if we receive the Bible as a message from God, that we must know which form of communication we are receiving, whether that is prophecy, poetry, history, narrative, law, teaching, or whatever else God wants to communicate.

I am seeking to understand this issue in general better by taking a look at this particular instance and invite your insights and observations.

The passage in Mark is to be taken literally but it is not be used for testing the Lord.

Let me give you an example:

Psalm 91 is to be taken literally and we know from Bible stories that many of the promises listed there have taken place literally ans even the metaphoric passages such as verse 4 are to be understood to mean literall protection from danger. I can think of Samson, David and the children of Israel and how they experienced these promises in a literal sense, but when the devil used verse 12 to get the Lord Jesus to test God He refused.

Psalm 91:

"He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High
Shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress;
My God, in Him I will trust.”

3 Surely He shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler[a]
And from the perilous pestilence.
4 He shall cover you with His feathers,
And under His wings you shall take refuge;
His truth shall be your shield and buckler.
5 You shall not be afraid of the terror by night,
Nor of the arrow that flies by day,
6 Nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness,
Nor of the destruction that lays waste at noonday.

7 A thousand may fall at your side,
And ten thousand at your right hand;
But it shall not come near you.
8 Only with your eyes shall you look,
And see the reward of the wicked.

9 Because you have made the Lord, who is my refuge,
Even the Most High, your dwelling place,
10 No evil shall befall you,
Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling;
11 For He shall give His angels charge over you,
To keep you in all your ways.
12 In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.
13 You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra,
The young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot.

14 “Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him on high, because he has known My name.
15 He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will deliver him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him,
And show him My salvation.”

What is the situation when it would ever be wise or godly to pick up a snake or drink poison?

Quote:

"What is the situation when it would ever be wise or godly to pick up a snake or drink poison?"

Paul picked up a snake--- not by the tail, of course, but he picked it up all the same. He was bitten and to everyone's astonishment he did not swell up and die.

I can't think of a story of the early church where a person who drank poison had no ill effects. But there are similar stories.. such as the martyrdom of Polycarp where he initially could not be burned.

I don't think these verses are encouraging people to drink poison or handle snakes as a sign to unbelievers; it seems rather that they are indicating that miraculous signs will occur when something is done TO the disciples. Of course not every time, as all (or mostly all) the disciples were martyred.

What is the situation when it would ever be wise or godly to pick up a snake or drink poison?

Taking a non-critical approach to the passage in question, the context suggests that these actions would be done either of necessity or accidentally, but not necessarily willfully or intentionally. The passage does not identify a motive, it simply makes a statement of fact. Our gk. verb for 'take up' is in the future active. We do not know why they would do it, we are just told that some will. There is a similar passage in Luke 10:19;

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

God's protection and power are in view. As was mentioned before, this is not an invitation to tempt the Lord. "IF thou dash thy foot against a stone," etc., is a mishap. Nor is it a promise that we will never ever suffer these things. The idea is that while we are moving in God's will the enemy wil not be able to thwart what God wants done. Paul headed for Rome discovered this by both the ship wreck and the snake bite.

And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. (Acts 28:3)

This is a literal fulfillment that strikes a strong similarity to what Jesus said in Mark 16:18 and Luke 10:19. Since we have only the record of events related to our instruction, etc. (heilsgeschichte) we do not know how many times this may have literally happened.

On a more spiritual or metaphorical line, Paul dealt with a serpent in Acts 16:

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. (Acts 16:16-18)

Our word for divination is puthon. Python, in the greek mythology, was the serpent which guarded delphi and slain by apollo. It is a way of saying she had a demon. Paul cast the 'serpent' out, treading upon the power of the enemy at the point of revelation. Paul did not seek out the serpent, the serpent dogged Paul's steps. I think this is instructive. He was led of the Spirit and when he faced a foe greater than him, in whatever form it was, by God's grace and power he prevailed. Why? He was on business for the Lord.

Hi! koheleth
Ummmm, I would like to throw in my two cents into the mix of this matter:
How 'bout I discuss it all in a conversational way?

Let's say you travel to a foreign country; a country whose languages, culture and customs are all strange to you. And, after you returned to your own country, some of your friends began asking what you saw and experienced.
Can you jus' imagine how difficult some of the sights and sounds from that foreign country would be for you to properly describe to your friends?

Well, that's basically the position that Jesus found Himself in. It must have been often frustrating for Him to tell His disciples about the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven ... the 'foreign country' which Jesus was constantly preoccupied with. And afterwards, the Apostles had similar frustrating times trying to explain the unseen/invisible dimension of their Gospel to the ordinary man on the street ... sortta' thing.

It was not an easy task for our Master to make known the secrets of the Kingdom of heaven and to reveal the thoughts of God concerning man. This is essentially why it is said of Jesus that He spoke in Parables.

Why parables?
A parable is simply the act of using a natural picture to express a supernatural reality; to cause the unseen to be seen.
Take a look up into the sky. There are two 'parables' there that every man can see.
The sun is a visible image of the invisible reality that God is light. The moon is a visible image of the invisible reality that Jesus reflects the glory of God (the sun) and shines "in the darkness".

So it is that there are some instances that signs and wonders can be interpreted as 'parables' because they reveal invisible realities ... they tell of things about a 'foreign country' known as the Kingdom of Heaven.

Some people remain unable to transpose the images and mistake the visible picture (parable) for reality. I suspect that this is what happened with the snake handler event which you wrote here about.

The image of "picking up serpents" is a visible image to reveal the invisible reality of triumphing over the devices of the evil one. Of course, this kind of event is a 'spiritual event' and belongs to the activities of the unseen Kingdom of God which unfortunately is a 'foreign country' to a lot of people.

There are numerous occasions where earthly images are used in the Bible to reveal heavenly realities. As Christians we have to learn how to transpose them and thereby make them effectual for our lives.

Oh, by the way: remember that story in the Gospel about the swine throwing themselves off the cliff. This too is a natural picture (visible event) which tells about a supernatural invisible reality. In the end times, the evil powers will throw themselves into the bottomless pit.

============================================
by Koheleth on 2012/5/30 13:52:37

I saw the news on the snake-handler who died of a bite yesterday [http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/201205290190].

I do not want to discuss that topic, but looking at the Scripture associated with it raised a general question I have. First, here are the Bible verses used by some to justify literally handling snakes. (I do not think a good case can be made for literal snake handling.)

==============================================

Thanks for your input TMK. Every little bit helps. I have the following responses.

TMK said >

The Bible does not say that he picked up a snake. The snake bit him and held on.

TMK said >

I would generally agree, but casting out demons or laying hands on the sick is not something that happened TO the disciples, but something they would do.

RobertW said >

Are you contrasting this to the critical view that Jesus may not have actually said these words, or something else?

RobertW said >

I agree about the similarities. In the Luke passage, Jesus seems to interpret. I don't believe he is talking about stomping on snakes and scorpions. He seems to use those as the figurative, because he segues right into "all the power of the enemy". My point of confusion in the Mark passage is about why Jesus might seem to mix figurative and literal signs. In the Luke passage, it seems clear and simple that he is making a transition from the figurative to the literal. A few people have referenced that the serpents in Mark are literal, but that doesn't make much sense to me. I would tend to interpret the serpents in Mark the same as in Luke, leading to my question on mixing. We say something similar today, "Don't mix your metaphors." Why? Because it leads to confusion.

Quote:
________
TMK said >

The Bible does not say that he picked up a snake. The snake bit him and held on.
----------------

here is the passage:

"But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand." Acts 28:3

I always assumed the snake was in the sticks that Paul picked up, and when he laid the sticks on the fire, the snake darted out from the sticks and latched onto Paul's hand. I guess the passage does not require this interpretation, but I think it is correct.

In regard to casting out demons and healing the sick, it is obvious that the disciples did these things. Jesus was talking about two different things here, in my opinion. I dont think he was telling them to drink poison and to pick up snakes (on purpose) to prove they were God's messengers, but was rather indicating that, at least in some cases, no harm would come to them if they drank poison (if forced, like Socrates) or were bitten by deadly vipers BECAUSE they were God's servants. But I do think he was telling them to actively heal the sick and cast out demons.

Blayne, thanks for your input. I have considered that perspective, although the passage in Mark is not a parable. But it is similar, in that both are figurative language.

You assert that Jesus used that image because there was not a better way to picture spiritual truth. But how about in Luke when he spoke literally and said they would "tread upon . . . all the power of the enemy." It seems there is not a need to use figurative language. Here in Mark, he said they would cast out demons, literally. He said they would heal the sick, literally. So the reference to picking up snakes is not making sense to me. I am not saying I can't make sense of it. Maybe I should return to a point in my original post.

This discussion was prompted by the "law of interpretation" that Christians often give to skeptics and liberals, that "we know what type of literature or statement we are reading and can interpret accordingly". Is Jesus speaking literally or figuratively here? I would agree it seems both, in which case we cannot say that the Bible contains clear sections that we "know" we can interpret by, so this "law" is no longer valid. In which case we would have to recognize that "literal" or "historical" passages can have metaphor and spiritualized parts to them, in which case we can no longer assert that certain parts of the Bible cannot be metaphorical because it is open to interpretation. Even in this discussion, there are those who have asserted that the serpents in Mark 16 are literal and others say figurative. This leaves us without a clear principle of interpretation. It doesn't seem like we have a strong ground to state that Jesus' statement cannot be either literal or figurative.

What is the situation when it would ever be wise or godly to pick up a snake or drink poison?

The sad state of affairs is that people who have a flair for the fantastic have made a religion and denomination out of picking up snakes in order to prove their faith which is not Christ intended (I don’t believe).

My friend Wayneman said, “It’s a distraction to take our eyes off of Christ.” And it is.

God bless,
Lisa

I have always thought that the "serpents" and "scorpions" refer to the powers of darkness and not physical creatures.

Consider:

1Kgs 12:11 And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

We know God used the powers of darkness to chastise Israel and He does the same thing with Christians. Basically, one opens themselves up to an attack from the Enemy when they turn away from the Lord. He allows what we choose. If you choose to turn away from the Lord you are turning towards the powers of darkness. There is no neutral in this car. Only forward and reverse. There is no third option. "He that is not with me is against me".

Jesus said to the Pharisees that their father was the devil and religionists have always persecuted people of the Spirit. They are scorpions in the sense that they are ruled by evil spirits.

Ezek 2:6 And thou, son of man, be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns [be] with thee, and thou dost dwell among SCORPIONS: be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they [be] a rebellious house.

We know scorpions cannot talk but Ezekiel says to not be "afraid of their words". He is talking about people that have turned away from God. To turn away from God is not to remain neutral but rather to turn towards the powers of darkness and abide in them. When you abide in evil, you are ruled by evil spirits and you bring forth their fruit. The Spirit of God through Ezekiel calls them SCORPIONS.

The disciples knew what Jesus was talking about when He said, "I give you power over serpents and scorpions". Unfortunately, most of the Church does not know what this means. We think the battle is 100% with the flesh (at least many act like that). Our battle is not with flesh and blood, but with powers and principalities, etc (Eph 6).

Notice in this next verse that Jesus equates serpents and scorpions with "all the power of the enemy". He is not equating 2 physical creatures with our SPIRITUAL ENEMY.

Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Pilgrim

Found this about Mark 16.9-20....

The External Evidences

Looking first to the Greek manuscript witness, we see that it stacks up heavily in favor of the authenticity of these verses. Bruce Terry2 presents the following breakdown:

In Favor of Mark 16:9-20
Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
28 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
33 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
565 (9th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
700 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
892 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
1010 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
The Byzantine textual set
Some of the Greek lectionaries

Opposed to Mark 16:9-20
Codex Sinaiticus (À) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
304 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
2386 (11th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
Most of the Greek lectionaries

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

Opposed to Mark 16:9-20
Codex Sinaiticus (À) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
304 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
2386 (11th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
Most of the Greek lectionaries

By looking at what is opposed to it, pretty much tells you the verses are authentic.

Mark 16:9-20 contain powerful truths that the Enemy would like to nullify in the Believer's mind.

Everest:

Hey, I'm all up for it being in there. However, I won't be fully on board until they can find at least one with the long ending predating the earliest copies with the short ending.

Are you willing to apply this to all scripture?

Why do people still think serpents and snakes in this context are physical?

Pilgrim

Quote: "Why do people still think serpents and snakes in this context are physical?"

Because in the context, that is the way it reads. What is the "figurative" interpretation of drinking a deadly poison?

Since nothing in Mark 16:9-20 that is in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, it is at least as easy for me to believe a portion is missing between vv. 8 & 9 as it is to believe 9-20 is an addition.

Irenaeus, [A.D. 120-202] quoted Mark 16:19. So, whether or not it was part of Mark's original gospel, it must have existed quite early.

EverestoSama wrote:
Hey, I'm all up for it being in there. However, I won't be fully on board until they can find at least one with the long ending predating the earliest copies with the short ending.

You are up for it being in there? Then please get ready to get on board! I really hate copying and pasting but here goes because I like this guy’s logic....
-------------------------------------------
***This week’s post is going to be done a little differently. One of the most attacked portions of Scripture is Mark 16:9-20. This portion of Mark is found in 618 extant manuscripts. The two manuscripts which they are not found in are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are the two primary underlying manuscripts used in every modern version. This means that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Mark 16:9-20, *****618 versus 2*****.

Keep in mind that the modern versions are based on 45 manuscripts out of 5255 which is less than 1% of all available manuscripts. This is why they can say that this portion of Mark is not part of Scripture because they reject 5210 of the 5255 manuscripts.

If your company promised you a salary of $5255 per month and then only paid you $45 per month, you would scream. So why don’t you scream when they do that to your Bible?

***They get away with doing this because they know Christians will never investigate anything relegating all their theological thinking to their Pastor or favorite theologian.

-----------------------------------------
Please read this in its entirety here...
http://www.scionofzion.com/mark_16_9_20.htm

God bless,
Lisa

In Every scripture it is important for us to understand the spirit of the verse and not go by word meaning. Here Jesus is talking about Gifts that believers will be blessed with and also about the Characters of Believers. Speaking in Tongues is a gift, and Paul clearly says that not every believer will speak in tongues. Regarding picking up of snakes- the spirit behind this is, there will not be any fear of Death in the believers because Jesus has already defeated death. If you take literal meaning out of it, then why should believers pick only snakes? why not some other poisonous animal? This is just an example that Jesus gave to show that a true believer will not have fear of death.

Re: EverestoSama wrote
"Hey, I'm all up for it being in there. However, I won't be fully on board until they can find at least one with the long ending predating the earliest copies with the short ending"

OK so you think this might be the ending verse??

vers 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were (afraid)

Would that not be a depressive ending statement and conclusion for the book of Mark??

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, (hath God said)?? We need to beware of the serpents voice of textual criticism.

Do you also have doubts with the Woman caught in adultry of John 8 ???

RE: EverestoSama wrote "There are just as many educated men and Bible interpreters who also doubt the validity of it's initial inclusion."

(And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the (scribes), which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces)

(For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God)

(For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness)

It is true the serpent of Historical Criticism has made its way in to some of the most Godly of Homes under the heading (I also believe in the inspiration of the scripture of the originals of course)

The Bible calls us to believe in things that the rational mind knows to be impossable. We are to believe in hope even when there is no Hope, that is biblical faith

The rational, natural, (sarx) carnal mind is enmity against God. It is the opposit of faith. It wants to be the God of it self, It wants to decide what is good what is evil what is right what is wrong what is true and what is false, and it is blind

What does the scripture teach about its own nature??

quote:

Also @TMK, if you have any links to the info about Irenaeus quoting it, I'd be interested to read up on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#cite_note-20

Because in the context, that is the way it reads. What is the "figurative" interpretation of drinking a deadly poison?

I must confess that is making me think a bit.

I know spiritually we drink living water or polluted (poisonous water). There does not seem to be any documented case of a Christian taking poison in their mouth and living or not living. I cannot find either.

By the way, do you think the Lord is talking about animals here or the powers of darkness?

Psa 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

While I am thinking on the point you made, do you think the "meal" in 2 Kings 4:41 is type of Christ?

2Ki 4:39 And one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered thereof wild gourds his lap full, and came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not.
2Ki 4:40 So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out, and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. And they could not eat thereof.
2Ki 4:41 But he said, Then bring meal. And he cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out for the people, that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot.

All the best,
Pilgrim

Brethren we need to understand that this is Jesus speaking as he is recorded in the other gospel accounts and this is part of the great commission he gave to the apostles giving them authority through the Holy Ghost.

We need to understand the great commission was given with power from on high and the emphasis was to them who believed that they would through and by the Holy Ghost speak with tongues, cast out devils(this is power over the evil one),take up (or put away) serpents (because we have been given power over snakes a long the way of the great commission)and if we drink any deadly thing (because Satan will also try to poison us but God will protect us because we are going about the great commission) and they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover ( the power to heal the sick was and is part of preaching the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus gave His power to the early church committed to Him going about the great commission.

We must not use any of His gifts and power as a play toy or to tempt the Lord but we must understand why authority is given to believers for God's purpose only in fulfilling the great commission.

Because in the context, that is the way it reads. What is the "figurative" interpretation of drinking a deadly poison?

I would suggest it is not figurative; but again, it is not a suggestion either. It is merely a statement of fact. The snake-handling and strychnine drinking we hear about is obviously the consequence of poor exegesis and hermeneutics. It is unfortunate. Moreover, there is a sense in which the behavior is tempting the Lord as a means of demonstrating that God is among the people. God cannot be held to honor the abuse of scripture in this way. Unfortunately for those that do such things they have taken their lives into their own hands. (Exodus 21:13, 14)

In ancient times poisons were employed at times for the purpose of assissination. This could be one of the reasons why we have no examples of the phenomena. Unless someone were to confess that they had tried to poison a person or it somehow was leaked, the only other means of knowing would be by revelation. This would be particularly true once the Arab's developed arsenic type poisons, as they can be very difficult to detect. So I would suggest that this is the one phenomena that would be most difficult to track and record. We simply can't know how many people may have been poisoned and yet lived or may have accidentally drank something poisoneous and lived.

46. For they heard them. He expresses what gifts of the Spirit were poured out upon them, and here he gives testimony of there use; and says, that they had variety of languages given them, so that they did glorify God with many different languages. Also, it may be understood of this scripture, that the different languages were given them not only for necessity, seeing the gospel was to be preached to strangers and to men of another language, but also secondly to be an ornament and conformation and worship to the spreading of the gospel. But mans self glory and ambition did afterward corrupt this second use, forasmuch as many did translate that unto pomp and vain glory which they had received to set forth the dignity of the heavenly wisdom, and still do today to their own corruption, as Paul doth sharply reprove this fault in the Corinthians. Therefore, no marvel if God took away that shortly after which he had given, and did not suffer the same to be corrupted with longer abuse. I know this will set the "unknown tongues speakers" at odds with what I write, but in fourty years in the body of Christ I have never seen a heavenly tongue that glorifies God, only man.
I have seen unknown languages spoken to different nationallities and understood, with God getting the Glory and people underatanding the Gospel who don't speak the same language who become saved by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I don't speak in tongues and I sure won't let a rattle snake bite me, the only place I see that in scripture is Paul on the Island when a serpent came out of the wood pile and bit him and the people marveled that he did not die and believed Paul was a man sent from God and Paul abode with them all winter, preaching the Gospel. God is still in control.

In Christ: Phillip

quote-

I don't speak in tongues and I sure won't let a rattle snake bite me, the only place I see that in scripture is Paul on the Island when a serpent came out of the wood pile and bit him and the people marveled that he did not die and believed Paul was a man sent from God. God is still in control.

-quote

Phillip who gives you authority to interpret the bible concerning tongues. Earlier you stated that God has taken away the gift of tongues because of its misuse but based on what scripture. Then you brag about not speaking in tongues and that you sure won't let a rattlesnake bite you but neither did Paul He was gathering sticks and didn't know the snake was going to bite him. Then you state that the people marvel that he didn't die and so believed that Paul was "a man sent from God" which is also incorrect. The bible says that they changed their mind about him being a murderer when he didn't immediately die, nor swell, nor feel any harm from the poisonous snake and after looking for a while they said that "he was a god".

Maybe if God graciously filled you with the Holy Spirit and you were to speak in tongues then maybe you would be more correct about the "Word of God" and not try to interpret what the scripture do not state. Don't mean to be to hard on you man but I just don't like it when people willfully misinterpret the bible but maybe you didn't mean to do it.

Anyway I hope you find grace in the Lord as he has to overlook us all sometimes because of our ignorance of Him and His ways.

1 Corinthians 14:18-23 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

I am sorry if you think I am interpreting scripture wrongly.
Knowing Paul in all his endevores after he met Christ on the road and was blinded, on the ground off his horse, spoken to out of a blinding light, and told what to do. What else could Paul do except preach Christ and Him Crucified? Paul even states it is "MY Gospel", because Christ Gave it to Him to give it to youward.

Ac 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Ac 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Ac 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Ac 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Ac 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Ac 9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

Paul always preached in all his travels preached Christ and Him Crucified. I am sure he preached the same to the barbarians. I have never seen where Paul let people think he was, "a god". I am sure he did not let the people who saw the snake bite him believe he was a god either. Do you see in Pauls circumstance on the island of Melita where he would not preach the Gospel given to him by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself?

If you see a second blessing in salvation being filled with the Holy Spirit, I do not, I see the whole of salvation receiving the Holy Spirit and being born again by the Spirit of Christ as the whole bucket of Grace made unto Gods chosen sons and Our Father making His abode with us.

In Christ: Phillip-

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and
(forbid not) to speak with tongues.

I don't know why you would spiritualize this verse for any reason. You might be able to generalize it to say that in all sorts of potentially deadly situations God will deliver you from the ill effects, extending it beyond just snakes and poison, but I don't think it was meant to be spiritualized.

Paul was helping to build a fire and a snake bit him. The people were amazed when there was not ill effect from the bite. This is a clear example of this promise in action. I am reminded of a time in Charles Parham's ministry in which he took a drink from the glass on the pulpit and immediately knew something was wrong with it. He did not drink any more. Later an analysis of the cup showed the poison was so strong that it should have killed a horse, let alone a man.