Is Mark 16:17-20 for today?

[luke1616]

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Does this scripture apply to today's believers?

 

[J.D.]

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. Does this scripture apply to today's believers?

I believe signs were for the apostolic age only.

II Cor 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

 

[Jerome]

Hebrews 2:3-4
...so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

 

[gb93433]

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;?

Would English qualify as a new tongue?

 

[pinoybaptist]

had a close relative who said that scripture still applies today.
yet wouldn't come with me to our cassava patch where cobras are known to nest. lol.

 

[TCassidy]

It is for today in the sense it is the eternal word of God from which nothing will be lost. However, the statement was prophetic of what would happen during the period of time delineated in the book of Acts. So, it is fulfilled prophecy and should not be considered the norm for today.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It is for today in the sense it is the eternal word of God from which nothing will be lost. However, the statement was prophetic of what would happen during the period of time delineated in the book of Acts. So, it is fulfilled prophecy and should not be considered the norm for today.

thanks for the elucidation.

 

[Tom Butler]

I would hesitate to build a doctrine around those verses, since Mark's authorship of them has been called into question by many reputable scholars.

Here's one:

The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).
vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).

Scholars have also cited internal evidence which casts doubt on Markian authorship ov vv 9-20.

 

[sag38]

Reminds of the late Wendy Bagwell when asked if he would handle a snake if the Lord told him to responded somewhat like thi,. "The Lord ain't told me to and I aint!"

 

[pinoybaptist]

Reminds of the late Wendy Bagwell when asked if he would handle a snake if the Lord told him to responded somewhat like thi,. "The Lord ain't told me to and I aint!"

there ya go......:laugh::laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I would hesitate to build a doctrine around those verses, since Mark's authorship of them has been called into question by many reputable scholars.

Here's one:



Scholars have also cited internal evidence which casts doubt on Markian authorship ov vv 9-20.

You go follow them scholars...just watch out for the ditches.

 

[Tom Butler]

You go follow them scholars...just watch out for the ditches.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

I'm not a scholar, but some of those who raise questions about that passage are conservatives, inerrantists. They have a very high view of Scripture.
I don't think we ought to blow them off, the way we might some liberal scholars, like those in the Jesus Seminar, who want to tear big chunks out of the Bible.

Or even some so-called moderate Baptists who think the first eleven chapters of Genesis never happened.

 

[gb93433]

You go follow them scholars...just watch out for the ditches.

Some are happy to add the commentary into their Bible that has been added over the years, rather than have just the pure word of God.

 

[tinytim]

It never was for the church.. as it doesn't belong in the Word of God..

 

[gb93433]

It never was for the church.. as it doesn't belong in the Word of God..

The snake charmers like those verses. They trust that somebody will die from time to time but still believe that introduction of verses from who knows where. They did leave out the apocrypha that was in the 1611 KJV. I cannot figure out why.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

I'm not a scholar, but some of those who raise questions about that passage are conservatives, inerrantists. They have a very high view of Scripture.
I don't think we ought to blow them off, the way we might some liberal scholars, like those in the Jesus Seminar, who want to tear big chunks out of the Bible.

Or even some so-called moderate Baptists who think the first eleven chapters of Genesis never happened.

I was trying to funny. No, I don't think we should just ignore them. I am in the process of evaluating textual criticism from a layman's point of view. I am by no means anti-intellectual. Neither am I willing to abandon faith either.

 

[Tom Butler]

I was trying to funny. No, I don't think we should just ignore them. I am in the process of evaluating textual criticism from a layman's point of view. I am by no means anti-intellectual. Neither am I willing to abandon faith either.

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I have to be beaten over the head to get a joke.

I don't want to abandon faith, either. I think one can make the case that such supernatural things mentioned in the Mark passage were designed to authenticate gospel in the absence of a written canon, and no longer are necessary. For that reason, and because the passage's authorship has been called into question, I would suggest that one be careful about building a doctrine around those verses.

 

[righteousdude2]

Do You Not ......

... practice the laying on of hands when someone is sick and requesting prayer??? Conversely, are these gifts and practices reserved just for the early church? Is there not a possibility that they were meant to equip the church to fight the spiritual war Paul speaks about in Eph. 6?

I believe that any gift mentioned in the B is available to the body when it will bring glory and honor to Jesus and the Father.

Paul told us that we are fighting a supernatural [evil] enemy [Eph. 6], so are we not going to cast out demons if, and they present themselves?

I'm just wondering how we can effectively minister when we decide to omit gifts and practices that Jesus specifically told His followers, that "they too would do these things, in His name."
As for the snakes....I don't believe that anyone of us is to"tempt the Lord, God" by purposely holding and daring a snake to bite us; Alternatively, to drink poison. Jesus told Satan that God was not to God. However, the snake thing was prevalent to an area that was inhabited by poisonous snakes, and I believe the Lord wanted His followers to know that if they were bitten while serving Him, they would not die. Again, they were not told to [ seek out poisonous and be bitten to test God at His word. That is a sin!

I think some of you are missing out on a lot of blessings [by closing your minds and hearts to what God can do through prayer and faith in Him], and have no hope when it comes to the supernatural attacks of the devil on the church.

Shalom,

Pastor Paul

 

[convicted1]

A dear deceased Brother in the Lord told me this one time.....He was talking to someone about snakehandling, and my friend told him that he handled snake all the time! His friend stated, "I never knew a United Baptist that handled snakes"! My friend then replied, "I handle mine with a long goose-neck hoe"! That was a funny story right there. I still miss my dear old friend. May you still rest in peace, Brother Cecil!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe that any gift mentioned in the B is available to the body when it will bring glory and honor to Jesus and the Father.

I can agree with that.

Permit me a story here:
A Baptist preacher had a Pentecostal preacher friend, who invited him to a revival service. So he went. As was customary, all visiting preachers were invited to sit on the platform.

During the service, a man went over to a box and pulled out a couple of rattlesnakes. The Baptist preacher leaned over to his Pentecostal pastor friend and said, "I'm sorry, I can stay here for this. Is there a back way out of here?"

"Nope, there's no back door out of here."

"Then," said the Baptist preacher, "where do you want one?"