Verse explainer

What does Mark 16:18 really mean?

A promise to first-century apostles confirming their mission — not a dare for believers to handle snakes as a test of faith.

KJV

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.

BSB

they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.

The plain meaning

Mark 16:17-18 is a block of signs Jesus says will accompany those who believe in the context of commissioning his disciples to go into all the world (v. 15). The verse lists five signs: casting out demons, speaking in new tongues, handling serpents, surviving poison, and healing the sick. Adam Clarke and others note that Acts 28:5 — Paul shaking a viper from his hand on Malta with no ill effect — stands as a literal fulfillment. The Greek verb translated 'shall take up' is future indicative, describing what will happen as God's protection over sent messengers, not a command to seek out snakes. Clarke notes the framing is protective ('if through mistake or accident'), not a staged test. The whole unit closes in vv. 19-20 by recording the disciples going out and the Lord 'confirming the word with signs following' — signs that authenticated the apostolic mission, not a standing dare to every Christian in every age.

The common misreading

"Mark 16:18 commands Christians to handle snakes and drink poison to prove their faith." This misreading drives real harm — snake-handling sects have formed around it, and people have died. But the verse makes no imperative command to handle serpents; it uses a future indicative ('they will take up'), describing God's protection over sent messengers, not a dare issued to all believers. Clarke frames the poison clause as covering accidental ingestion by missionaries in the field, not a deliberate ritual. The immediate context (vv. 15-20) is a commissioning scene: Jesus sends the Eleven into all the world, and these signs are listed as confirmations that will follow the genuine apostolic mission — a purpose fulfilled in Acts (see 28:3-5 for Paul and the viper). Treating the verse as a standing command also ignores that the same passage's other signs — mass exorcisms and speaking in new tongues as immediate evidence — are rarely pressed with equal literalism by those who emphasize the serpent clause. The honest reading is apostolic attestation, not a spiritual gauntlet every Christian must run.

What the commentators say

Adam Clarkeearly 19th c. · PD

Clarke reads the serpent and poison signs as God's promise to protect sent messengers when such proof would serve the cause of truth — not a prescription for deliberate testing. He points to Paul at Malta (Acts 28:5) as literal fulfillment, and notes the poison clause implies accidental ingestion, not an intentional act. Clarke also argues that Mohammed's death by poison stands as implicit evidence against his prophetic claims precisely because this protection was not extended to him.

John Gill18th c. · PD

Gill situates these signs within the broader commissioning passage and ties their fulfillment to the apostolic generation specifically. He reads the signs as accompanying and confirming the preaching of the gospel in that era, grounding the clause in its narrative completion in vv. 19-20: 'the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.' The force is attestation of the apostles' mission, not a permanent spiritual benchmark for all believers.

Matthew Henryearly 18th c. · PD

Henry understands these signs as credentials given to the first preachers to break open a hostile world to the gospel — extraordinary gifts for an extraordinary founding moment. He cautions against presumption: the promise is to those sent on God's errand, not to those who manufacture trials to prove their faith. The protection flows from mission, not from bravado.

The word behind it

ἀροῦσιν arousin

Third-person plural future of airō — 'they will take up' or 'they will lift.' The future indicative here is predictive and promissory, not imperative. It describes what will happen to those sent out, not what they are commanded to seek. Strong's (G142) gives the base sense as 'to raise, to take up.' The distinction between a predicted event and a commanded act is precisely what separates the apostolic-protection reading from the snake-handling-as-test reading.

Related verses