Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Mark 9:49 ¶ "For everyone will be salted with fire. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Mark 9:49 ¶ "For everyone will be salted with fire. |
Bible Question (short): Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" |
Question (full): Could this passage mean: "For everyone [who is sent to hell] will be destroyed by fire." ? Reasons... The context from (42) causing "one of these little ones who believes in me to sin...", it would be better to be cast into the sea (also known as the abyss) and then if any part of you causes you to sin it would be better to remove that part than to be cast into the valley of Gehinnom. This is followed by the "odd" passage in question. The following are my reasons for interpreting this text as I did above: 1) If the Jews in the first century spoke Hebrew (this works even if you believe they spoke Aramaic as well.) then the Greek of Jesus words are a translation from the Hebrew that Jesus spoke. This passage can be translated word for word from the Greek back to Hebrew without changing the word order. (Which is not common between the languages.) 2) In Hebrew the word salt, from the base "m-l-h" can mean to destroy. (Lot's wife; Is 51:6 the words translated "to vanish away" is actually the words "to salt". Judges 9:45 Abimelech destroys Shechem and "sows it with salt." Deut 29:3, salt is a symbol of destruction. The “salt sea” is also known as the “dead” sea.) All of these are the same in Hebrew. So salting a place or person is often to destroy. 3) Most explanations of this verse have to do with purifications; so much so that some translations of the Bible actually put it in the text. (Always a dangerous thing to put an interpretation into the text of a translation.) They arrive at this from the use of salt in the sacrificial system. 4) Two Dutch exegetes - Hugo Grotius in 1641 and Johannes Clericus in 1714 - proposed this very interpretation. (I am unaware if Clericus got his interpretation from Grotius.) 5) This works the same with Aramaic since the root of the word “salt” is the same. If Jesus was using this term by drawing from either a Hebrew idiom or the Text of scripture that matches the “destruction” of Gehinnom, is certainly is a plausible interpretation. It matches the context of all that came before. THE PROBLEM: The problem I have unresolved is the next verse. If “salt” in verse 49 is to be rendered as “destroy” then verse 50 posses a problem that I have not sifted through. If anyone has some thoughtful comments I would love to read them. I have read several commentaries, so no need to quote them unless it pertains to the discussion. There are after all at least 15 different interpretations out there. I want to hear from others if there is any possibility of this being correct. As you may know, I like to try to get into the mind of the first hearers of the text and hope to hear what they heard. Being western and removed by language culture and 2000 years makes that a challenge….but a fun one. God bless, MJH |