My contention is not whether or not the meaning is symbolic or literal. Personally, I think it’s probably both.
My contention is that the persons interpreting the passage use some consistency in the interpretation. Either the entire PASSAGE is literal; or it is symbolic; or both.
But don’t cherry pick within a sentence even and say, “Well, casting out demons is symbolic, and speaking in tongues is literal...”, and so on, to fit with one’s preconceived theology.
Our theology is to be determined by the Word of God, not by our personal preferences, especially when we let the personal preferences color our interpretation of Scripture.
Consistency is necessary. Anyone can justify anything by inconsistent interpretation of Scripture.
The same folks who demand that water baptism is essential for salvation because Jesus said it in Mark 16 will then turn around and mock those who they think believe that speaking in tongues and snake handling comes with believing in the very next verse, the very next sentence that Jesus uttered.
Those people are believing the words of Jesus in verse 17 as the baptism is necessary for salvation group is in verse 16. There is nothing in the context of the passage to indicate that Jesus went from speaking literally in verse 16 to speaking figuratively in verse 17.
If they are going to disallow verse 17, then verse 16 ought to be disallowed.
And not only our theology, but much more importantly, our salvation.
Thank you so much, dear sister in Christ, for your astute observations!