The main purpose of this page is to argue for a new reading of the “salt” sayings in Mark.
Mark 9:42-50 (NIV) - "[But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones that have faith], it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into [Gehenna], where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into [Gehenna]. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the [BASILEIA, “new rule”] of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into [Gehenna], where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. [Or ‘all sacrifices will be salted with fire’][] If salt loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."
My reading of Mark’s salt saying complex is: If anyone in the church would cause you to lose faith, cast them out of the church, they will cause you to be cast into the purgatory of Gehenna. Everyone/all sacrifices are salted (purified, made acceptable to God) by fire. But if salt (of the old covenant) has lost its saltiness (acceptability to God) how can (it/things) be made salty (acceptable to God)? Have salt (of the new covenant of the sacrifice of Christ, love and forgiveness)) in you, and be at peace with one another.
The first part of this reading relating the body described in the text to the body of the church is supported by Paul and has already been argued by scholars. The rest of the reading, specifically relating to the “salt complex” is what I wish to make a new argument for.
Mark in general shows extensive allusion to the Old Testament. Here, on my reading he has crafted a section involving two interlocking metaphors that refer to the same section of the Old Testament. There is the “salt of the old covenant” (Leviticus 2:13), and the “salt of the new covenant”. There is also the salt that must be present in cultic sacrifices to God (Leviticus 2:11), the “salt of the sacrifice of Christ” and the salt that must be in us as metaphorical sacrifices following Christ. Both metaphors have support in Paul.
The resulting meaning of the section, with my reading, is a basic Christian message. It contains the importance of faith, the possibility of punishment, and instructions for obtaining God’s forgiveness. The themes developed in the section, forgiveness for forgiveness, old versus new, and the possibility of punishment are all present in other parts of Mark, and as I argue below, at least two of these themes are more central to Mark’s purpose than is generally recognized.
To argue then, for a reading other than this, is to argue that the author of the gospel of Mark, with all of his Old Testament knowledge, a contemporary of Paul, assembled something that could be read as an interlocking double metaphor relating to Leviticus, using metaphors apparently known to Paul, and that could be read as a central Christian message, with themes echoed elsewhere in Mark, and did this completely by accident. To me it is far more likely Mark crafted this section to be read as I have read it, than accidentally assembled a section that could be read that way.
On this page I only wish to completely argue my reading of the salt sayings, which I believe can be demonstrated to be highly probable to an objective observer. There are, however, a number of implications of my reading that I do not wish to fully argue here. Most important among these is that Mark seems to have a plan for salvation. While I do not claim that I can identify an exact formula as probable, I do claim that a formula very similar to this is probable.
It may aid clarity here to state some things that (in my view) Mark does not say are involved in salvation, as well as what I believe he does say.
1) He says nothing about faith alone, or faith and scripture alone (Paul, Luther)
2) He does not have a formula of substitutionary atonement (Augustine, Anselm)
3) He does not have the sacrament of the Eucharist for forgiveness (Matthew)
4) He does not claim Identity with the Word of God (John)
5) I believe the doctrine recorded by Mark was ambiguous enough on the issue of works for salvation, that Paul and the author of the epistle of James could interpret it differently.
6) Mark does indicate faith in God (both belief in his existence, and trust in his forgiveness) consistent with the Jewish tradition, but this is not faith in the gospel, or the resurrection. Nor does it have Jesus as the object of faith.
7) Prayer may be important, as in the Jewish tradition.
8) Mark believes there will be a physical resurrection in the future consistent with some Jewish tradition, and AEONION “eternal” life. This is not the same as the “Kingdom”, BASILEIA, the new rule, or new covenant of God, which is near.
9) Mark believes there will be a purgatory-like place, consistent with some Jewish tradition. Mark does not have the idea of hell that would develop later.
10) What is most important about Mark’s message of salvation is that we must have certain internal Christ-like qualities, the salt of the new covenant, or the salt of the sacrifice. I identify these qualities as love and forgiveness.
11) Mark believes we should follow and imitate Jesus, who inaugurates the new covenant.
12) We should ingest the bread and the wine, symbolic of the body and blood, but it is the “salt” of the sacrifice and the “salt” of the new covenant (love and forgiveness) that must be present in us to make us acceptable to God.
An outline of the arguments for my reading
First we have direct evidence for the “metaphor of the sacrifice” i.e. we are the sacrifice; salt makes us acceptable, yeast unacceptable.
1) Mark makes frequent subtle Old Testament references and Leviticus tells us about salt and yeast for sacrifices. (2:11)
2) Mark has connected Gehenna and salt. The connection between “Gehenna” a place where human sacrifices by fire had been made (Jeremiah 7:31, 2 Chronicles 28:3) and “salt” is sacrifices, so we should read sacrificial salt. Mark then tells us to have salt in us.
3) Paul gives us two different quotes indicating that we should become metaphorical sacrifices, acceptable to God, and sweet-smelling. (Ephesians 4:32–5:2 and Romans 12:1f) Paul also shows he knows a metaphor about salt. (Colossians 4:6)
4) Ancient witnesses of the gospel of Mark made the connection to salt for sacrifices. Some have Mark 9:49 as ‘All sacrifices will be salted with fire’.
5) Mark shows us yeast in people as a negative elsewhere (Mark 8:14-15), this sets up a contrast with good salt in people
6) Mark tells us we should pick up our (metaphorical) cross and follow Christ (8:34) just as Paul tells us to follow Christ and then Paul makes explicit that we should be metaphorical sacrifices (Ephesians 4:32–5:2)
Mark has a pattern of old covenant / new covenant relations where Mark seems to void the old covenant (see arguments) that have been obscured by later gospels. My reading of salt gives us one more such reference obscured by later gospels. Not only does my reading extend the pattern of old/new in Mark, but there is more confirmation in the fact that Matthew and Luke treated salt like the other old/new contrasts.
1) Calming sea (4:35) / walking on water (7:45)
2) Feeding 5000 (6:30) / feeding 4000 (8:1)
The pattern of hiding Mark’s voiding of the old covenant is made even clearer by Matthew’s placement of not a jot, not an iota (Mt. 5:17), right after re-contextualizing Mark’s salt saying.
Mark has a statement voiding the Sabbath (3:27) that is eliminated by Matthew and Luke. This is consistent with the idea that Mark voided the old covenant and Mt. and Lk. obscured that.
Mark has other old/new contrasts that do not directly indicate the end of the old covenant, and are not obscured by later gospels, but show that old/new is a wider theme in Mark. My reading of salt continues that theme.
1) Wineskins (2:22)
2) Parable of tenants (12:1)
3) Parallels between Mark1 and Mark5 casting out demons immediately followed by curing women first in Jewish territory then in pagan territory.
Mark seems to have a plan of salvation involving forgiveness for forgiveness (see arguments) that follows a pattern of being obscured by later authors. My reading of salt continues both the pattern of forgiveness for forgiveness in Mark and the pattern of that message being obscured in later gospels.
1) Mark 11:20-25’s “forgiveness for forgiveness” that shows signs of late tampering
2) Measure parable (4:24)
3) Little children parables (9:33, 10:13)
Matthew continues this pattern of eliminating Mark’s forgiveness message by introducing his own method of forgiveness, the sacrament, (Mark 14:24 vs. Mt. 26:29). If Mark’s salt complex is about forgiveness, then that would be consistent with the fact that Matthew takes it apart.
Mark 9:42:50 reads as a unified whole if we assume Mark has a plan of salvation involving faith in God, and forgiveness of others. This supports that reading of Mark.
Mark’s “Follow Christ” (8:34) can be read as “follow my example to follow in the resurrection”. My reading of salt is consistent with that idea.
Mark 10:35-45 may be saying that those that wish to be first in the new rule of God should make themselves last here. The theme of humility for reward would be consistent with Mark’s “forgiveness for forgiveness” message. That would support my reading of Mark.
Salt can be “love and forgiveness”. My reading of salt continues that pattern.
1) 3 quotes from Paul to support it to various degrees (Ephesians 4:32–5:2, Romans 12:1f, Colossians 4:6)
2) Mark indicates that salt allows us to live in peace.
3) There is a still existent tradition of a covenant of salt being peaceful relations among peoples of the region.
4) Latin salax = “in a salted state” = in love.
5) The Pharisees who have yeast can be seen as non-forgiving, so by contrast having salt would be having forgiveness.
6) Matthew’s position of salt sayings relative to his love and forgiveness section (5:13-6:15) indicates he may have seen these as connected.
7) If this is the salt of the new covenant, of the sacrifice of Christ, then "salt" as "love and forgiveness" is an obvious choice.
Mark places emphasis on both love (Mark 12) and forgiveness (Mark 11) as important to God. My reading of salt is consistent with that. Love God, love your neighbor, have faith in God for forgiveness, forgive others, has a symmetry, which is supported by my reading of salt.
My reading of salt suggests that Mark believed in a purgatory. This can be supported
1) Mark has brought together the sacrificial fires of Gehenna, the fire and worm representing disgrace and destruction from Isaiah, and salt which can be a purifier
2) We know from the deuterocanonical texts that Jewish thought seems to have developed an idea of something like a purgatory.
3) Mark 12:40 is consistent with a purgatory.
4) Early Christians read Gehenna as a purgatory or worse.
5) Purgatory and eventual universal salvation was a dominant Christian belief in the first few Christian centuries. There is little if any scriptural support for this idea elsewhere. If the first gospel, Mark, contained the idea of a purgatory, this early Christian believe is more explicable.
6) The variation of ancient witnesses to Mark demonstrates that they saw a connection between people in the fire and sacrifices in the fire.
When talking about parables, Mark seems to warn us to be on the look out for obscure messages, and if Mark is cluing us in on obscure messages, this makes sense of the dense disciples. Their lack of understanding is a clue to the reader to look deeper.
My reading of Salt makes Mark look much more like a very carefully planned work, and less like a collection of semi-random bits.
Arguments
Salt and sacrifices
Our earliest surviving gospel Mark says
Mark 9:42-46 (New Jerusalem and NIV and Greek) - "[But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones that have faith], it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into [Gehenna], where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into [Gehenna]. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into [Gehenna], where “‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'“
First of all, some scholars have suggested that we should probably not understand this to advocate the literal removal of body parts. Rather, it is a metaphor for “cutting off” from the body of the church, those that would cause loss of faith. For example Paul says (Romans 12:4-5) - “Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.”
We can also note that Mark quotes or nearly quotes the last few lines of Isaiah with the worm and the fire. Mark also refers to Gehenna. The word “Gehenna” comes from the name of a valley near Jerusalem. Human sacrifices by fire had been made there in the past, (See Jeremiah 7:31 and 2 Chronicles 28:3 for example). Also, bodies of criminals were left there to rot above ground, rather than being buried as was the Jewish custom. And then in Isaiah the worm and the fire refer to indignity and to the ultimate destruction of the body, not torment after death.
But given that there are about 400 years between the end of the Hebrew canon, and the beginning of the New Testament period, during which time the area became Greek-speaking, and Greek philosophy became well known, and given that some Jewish writings from the period, the deuterocanonical texts, reflect a belief in a place of seemingly temporary torment after death, it is quite possible that Mark meant something like a purgatory here, even though Isaiah did not.
Mark 9:49 says “Everyone [there] will be salted [hALAS] with fire”. The connection between this salt saying and the previous text regarding Gehenna would seem to be sacrifices. Gehenna was a place where human sacrifices by fire were made in the past. Then in Leviticus, and in the general knowledge of the region, salt is something of purity. New-borns were rubbed with salt, for example. We can also look at Kosher or halal food in Judaism and Islam. Salt was added to sacrifices to purify them, to make them acceptable to God. Leviticus 2:11f (New Jerusalem) “None of the cereal offerings which you offer to Yahweh must be prepared with leaven for you must never include leaven or honey in food burnt for Yahweh. You may offer them to Yahweh as an offering of first-fruits, but they will not make a pleasing smell if they are burned on the altar. You will put salt in every cereal offering that you offer, and you will not fail to put the salt of the covenant of your God on your cereal offering” So when Mark follows his discussion of Gehenna, a place of sacrifices, with “Everyone there will be salted with fire” this strongly suggests sacrificial salt and purification by fire, and a temporary torment.
Some ancient authorities read “All sacrifices will be salted with fire”. Even if that reading is not the original, it tells us that that is what early Christians heard there. We can also see, for example, that many first century Christians did hear it that way, because of the way the tradition evolved in the gospel of Matthew. Also believe in a purgatory and eventual universal salvation was a dominant belief in the first few Christian centuries. There is scant scriptural support for this idea elsewhere. We can make more sense of this early Christian belief, if the first gospel, Mark, contained the idea of purgatory.
Another clue that Mark believed in something like a purgatory might be Mark 12:40. Mark gives us a bad example and a good example. First he talks about the scribes that devour the property of widows, and then about the charity of a poor widow. Of the scribes he says, “The more severe will be the sentence they receive.” Again this could suggest something like a purgatory.
The idea of a purgatory, per se, in Mark is not essential to my main argument here, however. The most important feature to note here is that Mark seems to make a connection between salt and sacrifices, evoking Leviticus. We could, instead of a purgatory, read “all sacrifices are destroyed by fire”. I see that as less likely, since I argue, it would be inconsistent with the meaning of the other instances of the word salt that follow, but that reading would not effect my central argument.
As a side note, in Matthew Mark’s “purgatory” becomes more hell-like. Matthew omits Mark’s “everyone will be salted with fire” and calls the fire “eternal” (or more accurately AEONION in Greek, something like “time beyond reckoning”). Mark uses AEONION to refer to “eternal life”. Mark 10:17 - ‘As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?”’. But Mark does not use AEONION for the fire of Gehenna. In general, there is a clear contrast between Matthew and Mark on hellfire and judgment. Matthew has John the Baptist preach judgment. Mark does not. “The son of man” is generally seen as a figure with the power to judge, and is certainly portrayed that way in Matthew, but this is noticeably absent in Mark. Matthew has hell-images in a number of places that are not in Mark, and adds “weeping a gnashing of teeth” often. Luke drops Mark’s whole Gehenna section completely, and replaces it with a different hell-like image (Luke 16:19f).
Salt as what makes one acceptable to God
Paul’s letters also contain the language of salt and sacrifices. Paul says in Romans 12:1f (New Jerusalem). “I urge you, then, brothers, remembering the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, dedicated and acceptable to God” And Paul also has in Ephesians 4:32–5:2 “Be generous to one another, sympathetic, forgiving others as readily as God forgave you in Christ. As God’s dear children, then, take him as your pattern, and follow Christ by loving as he loved you, giving himself up for us as an offering and a sweet-smelling sacrifice to God.” Finally Paul has Colossians 4:6 “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”
Paul says that we should make ourselves into sacrifices acceptable to God (Romans), and that we should make ourselves into sweet-smelling sacrifices (Ephesians). This clearly echoes the language of Leviticus 2. Paul shows that he knows the metaphor that I am arguing Mark employs. To be acceptable to God sacrifices must have salt, and by analogy we as metaphorical sacrifices must have metaphorical salt within us to make us acceptable to God. So for Colossians 4:6 “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” Paul is saying that our speech should be seasoned with that which makes one acceptable to God.
The “salt” sayings in Mark end with “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other." We’ve already argued that Mark is talking about the salt in sacrifices here. So what does Mark mean by “have salt in yourselves”? Based on both Mark’s apparent reference to salt in Leviticus, and Paul’s more explicit one, we would read, “Have what makes one acceptable to God, in yourselves”.
We can also look at Mark 8 where Jesus warns of the yeast of the Pharisees. (Mark 8:14-15) "Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees”. Mark is again using the language of sacrifices from Leviticus as a metaphor for what is inside people. We can compare this to Mark 7:15 Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' In Leviticus leaven makes a sacrifice unacceptable to God, and salt makes a sacrifice acceptable. In Mark metaphorical leaven makes a person a metaphorical sacrifice unacceptable to God, and metaphorical salt makes a person a metaphorical sacrifice acceptable to God.
Salt of the New Covenant
Now we need to look at the second of Mark’s salt sayings, "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again” It moves to different contexts in Matthew and Luke. Matthew has (5:13f) "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. You are the light of the world…
We can make sense of salt in Matthew’s context in light of what we have determined about salt in Mark and Paul. When Matthew says “You are the salt of the earth” we can read, “You make the earth acceptable to God”. Then we can read that if salt (You followers, that make the earth acceptable to God) losses its acceptability to God, how can it be made acceptable again? It is good for nothing! Matthew says if the very stuff that makes something acceptable to God, losses its acceptability to God, how can it be made acceptable again? If the followers loose their salt they will good for nothing.
Now what does this saying mean in Mark?
Mark 9:47-50 “It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into [Gehenna], where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."
It has been suggested that the 2nd salt saying was not originally in Mark, that maybe it was a margin note that got mixed in with the rest of the salt sayings. However, I think we can take a clue here from the "salt covenant" idea in Leviticus. Let’s say that in the past, what had made one acceptable to God was the old covenant of salt. Then in Mark 9 we have –
Q: If salt, (what makes one acceptable to God), (the old covenant of salt) loses its
saltiness, (its acceptability to God), how can things be made salty (acceptable) again?
A: Have the salt of the new covenant in you. What made Christ a sweet-smelling sacrifice should also be it you.
The old is void and replaced
If that is correct, then Mark is saying the old covenant is void and replaced.
Now look again at Matthew. Matthew re-contextualizes Mark's salt saying, and immediately follows with "not a dot, not a stroke" shall disappear from the law (Mt. 5:17-19. Luke has shorter version at Luke 16:7). Coincidence? I don’t think so. Matthew didn't like Mark's rejection of the old covenant! Matthew clearly thought the old covenant still applied. That is not so clear in Mark. Mark is critical of traditions, and seems to say the old covenant can be reduced to a few of the 10 commandments, love God, and love your neighbor. Mark also has for example (3:27), “The Sabbath was made for man, nor man for the Sabbath“. This text is missing in both Matthew and Luke.
To see Mark’s old/new contrasts, we can also look at the stories at sea in Mark. In Mark 4:35-41 the waters obey the command of Jesus. Then in Mark 7:45-52 Jesus comes walking on water through the storm. The disciples may have some trouble seeing him, “he looks like a ghost”. We are then told the disciples have not understood (about the bread), and that their “hearts have been hardened”. By the references to a water miracle and “hardening hearts” Mark is evoking Exodus. Now in the two miracles at sea we can see first Moses commanding the waters of the red sea in Exodus, and then the new Exodus of Isaiah 43:16f “Thus says Yahweh who made a way through the sea, a path in the raging waters…Look I am doing something new, it emerges; can you not see it?” Again we have a theme of moving from the old covenant to the new. Echoes of the emerging Kingdom are found in the parables of the seeds, Mark 4:26-32.
Mark has another reference to Exodus not long before the walking on water. In the sending of the twelve Mark 6:8 says that they should take only sandals a staff, and no spare tunic. This echoes Exodus 12:11 “This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord's Passover.” Mark has sent forth the 12 disciples, in the new Exodus, as the 12 tribes were sent forth in the original Exodus. We can also note that this new Exodus follows shortly after Jesus the prophet is rejected by his own people in Mark 6:1f.
Matthew and Luke both remove the Exodus reference; they both say that nothing should be taken on the journey. Matthew has Jesus walking on the water (Mt. 14:22) but removes Mark’s “hardened hearts” and the exhortation for us to look into this deeply, and see the new Exodus. Once again, Matthew is covering-up Mark’s rejection of the old covenant. Luke’s solution is to completely omit the “walking on the water” section.
We can also look again at the “yeast of the Pharisees”. Mark 8:15f – ‘"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod”…” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" "Twelve," they replied. "And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" They answered, "Seven." He said to them, "Do you still not understand?”’
Here we have 12 for the 12 tribes of Israel, and 7 for the 7 days of creation. The first feeding is in Jewish territory is for the 12 tribes of Israel, and then the second that takes place in Gentile territory is for all of creation. We are moving from the 12 loaves of the bread of the old covenant. Leviticus 24:5f "Take fine flour and bake twelve loaves of bread…This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant.” to the bread of the new covenant, Mark 14:22 “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is my body…This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant .’”
We can also note the number of loaves and fish they start with in the miracle of the 5000. There are 5 loaves and 2 fish. In Exodus 16:4 we have “Look, I will rain down bread for you from the heavens (for 5 days)…On the sixth day however…this must be twice as much as they collect on ordinary days.” The numbers 5 and 2 in Mark evoke the 5 days of mana with twice as much on the sixth day from Exodus. So we have another reference to bread in the old covenant. As far as I can tell, the numbers “5000” and “4000” are just name tags so that Mark can refer back to the incidents by name later in his gospel.
Mark first tells us that the Pharisees have lost their “acceptability to God”, they now have “leaven” in them, and by extension we should understand that bread of the old covenant is now filled with leaven, and is unacceptable. The old covenant is over; the new one is in force. There is a passage to indicate this transition in the healing of the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter, Mark 7:24-30, “the children should be fed first”. Mark then follows this with the healing of a deaf and dumb man with spittle, signaling he is about to start revelation of the new covenant
Matthew has Mark’s discussion of the yeast of the Pharisees (Mt. 16:5f), but removes Mark’s references to 12 and 7. Again, Matthew does not want to declare the old covenant void. Matthew also changes “Herod” to “the Sadducees” and tells us that the yeast means we should beware of their “teachings”, obscuring Mark’s message that they have become unacceptable to God, and thereby obscuring Mark’s rejection of the old covenant as unacceptable to God. Matthew even suggests that yeast is a good thing in Matthew 13:33. Again Luke’s solution is to drop one of the feedings entirely.
Apparently Mark thinks Herod is unacceptable to God. Besides the fact that Mark says he now is filled with “yeast”, we can note that in Mark 6 he has Herod breaking old covenant law. Can we make anything more of this? Maybe. In Mark 3:6 Jesus’s opponents are the Pharisees and the Herodians, who were political supporters of the government of Herod. When Mark has Jesus “eating with the tax collectors” (Mark 2:15-17) and has Jesus saying in Mark 12:17 “Pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”, could he be saying that now that Herod’s rule is illegitimate, his followers should be good Roman citizens?
We can see other echoes of this old and new theme in Mark in Mark 12:1f, the parable of the tenants, and 3:21-22 old and new wineskins. This section reads, "Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?" Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.”
Mark immediately follows the second water miracle with the healing of the blind man with spittle, and then shifts his focus to epiphany. We move from a section that talks about bread frequently 6:30-8:21 to one focused on revelation, 8:27-13:37 beginning with Peter’s profession of faith in 8:27f, and continuing with the transfiguration, the predictions of the passion, Jesus as Lord of David, the apocalyptic material, and I would argue Mark’s message of salvation – “faith in God and forgiveness for others”. Here Mark may be seen as following Deuteronomy 8:3 “…to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord”
There is also some interesting structure in Mark’s “casting out demons” and “healing of women” miracles. The wording of the miracles in Mark 1:21f and 5:1f are very similar. Mark 1 announces the Jewish ministry of Jesus, and then Mark 5 occurs when Jesus first sets foot in pagan territory. In Mark 1 there is only one demon to cast out, but there are a legion of demons in pagan territory. Both of these are then followed by miracles involving the healing of women. Mark 1:29 has him cure the fever of Simon’s mother-in-law. Then in Mark 5:21-43 we have a more complex healing story culminating with the resurrection of a little girl. While this set of stories does not indicate a voiding of the old covenant, it does show Mark’s wider theme of old and new.
Salt as Love and Forgiveness
So what is this metaphorical salt that makes one acceptable to God? What made Christ a sweet-smelling sacrifice? What is the salt of the new covenant? From Ephesians 4:32–5:2 “Be generous to one another, sympathetic, forgiving others as readily as God forgave you in Christ. As God’s dear children, then, take him as your pattern, and follow Christ by loving as he loved you, giving himself up for us as an offering and a sweet-smelling sacrifice to God.” I think we could guess here that, salt, what makes one a sweet-smelling sacrifice, is “Love and forgiveness of others”.
We can support this reading of Paul, that what makes one a sacrifice acceptable to God is “love and forgiveness” by looking at Romans 12 (New Jerusalem). “I urge you, then, brothers, remembering the mercies (forgiveness) of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, dedicated and acceptable to God” Paul continues with a lot of things that one should be or do, but among them are “love without pretence”, “bless your persecutors”, “never pay back evil with evil”, and “never try to get revenge” and “be at peace with everyone”. That last echoes Mark 9:50 “Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."
Mark also seems to say that forgiving others is needed to make one acceptable to God. (Mark 11: 25 NIV) "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." Also Mark tells us that God’s most important commands are to love. Mark 12:28-31 "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." So it seems perfectly consistent with Mark to read “what makes one acceptable to God” as “love and forgiveness for others” just as in Paul.
Another clue might come from Latin. The Latin word “salax” literally means “to be in a salted state” and was used to mean “being in love”.
And we can note that if “not having salt” or ‘having yeast” is “not forgiving others” then this could easily apply to the Pharisees who were long on judgment and harsh justice and short on forgiveness. In Mark 7:6-7 Jesus says of the Pharisees, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ Then in a number of places he criticizes the harsh teachings of the Pharisees. For example in Mark 10:1-12 he criticizes the Pharisees regarding their teachings on divorce. As a side note here - we should understand that this was for the protection of women. Divorce was entirely a choice that the husband could make. Women who did not own property would be left with nothing, and not only that but the husband had an effective threat to keep the wife in line. Mark has Jesus say that this practice is wrong. She should not have to fear a loss of security. He is critical of the harsh rule-bound justice of the Pharisees.
More support for salt being “love and forgiveness” might come from Matthew 5 where the salt sayings are soon followed by an extensive section on over-the-top forgiveness, including things like: “Turn the other cheek”, “Love your enemy”, “Set no bounds on your love, just as your heavenly Father sets no bounds on his” and the Lord’s prayer, “forgive as we have forgiven”.
Forgiveness for forgiveness
Now we can take a new look at Mark 11. Clearly the text underwent some evolution here. In Mark, the entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple happen on two different days. In Matthew (Mt. 21) these things happen on the same day. Also the withered fig tree in Mark separates the temple cleansing and the discussion of the authority of Jesus. But these incidents are directly connected in John (John 2). Then, in Mark 2:1-12 when Jesus forgives sins, his authority is immediately questioned by the Pharisees. Finally the “uprooted and planted in the sea” saying is in a different context in Luke 17:6 and Luke in connecting this to the “mustard seed” shows knowledge of Matthew and/or “Q” here . So, it seems quite possible that the location of the fig tree in Mark is a late addition to Mark. The fig tree was probably in the original Mark, but would have been at a different location, and possibly with a different conclusion.
If we try to read Mark 11 but subtract Matthew’s text as being suspect, we can then see a text that reads something like this - Mark 11:10 – Hosanna (please save) in the highest heavens! He entered Jerusalem and went into the Temple and began driving out the men selling and buying there; he upset the tables of the money changers and the seats of the dove sellers. Nor would he allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple. And he taught them and said “Does not scripture say: My house will be called a house of prayer for all people? But you have turned it into a bandits’ den…[…]…Have faith in God and when you stand in prayer forgive whatever you have against anybody, so that your Father in heaven may forgive your failings too”….and they said to him “What authority have you…”.
This altered text is not essential to the argument however. Either way Mark has said “Trust God. He answers prayers for forgiveness, but asks that we forgive others.” What if we take this as Mark’s plan for salvation? We can then read Mark 9 as a unified whole. Mark 9:42-50 says,"[But anyone who is the downfall of one of these little ones that have faith], it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into [Gehenna], where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into [Gehenna]. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into [Gehenna], where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire. [Or ‘all sacrifices will be salted with fire’] [] If salt loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."
We can now read this as – “If a member of the church would cause you to lose faith, cut them off from the church, because they will cause you to be sent to the purgatory of Gehenna. Everyone there is purified and made acceptable to God by fire. But if the old covenant of salt has lost its acceptability to God, how can people be made acceptable to God? Have the salt of the new covenant of Christ, love and forgiveness, in you, and be at peace with each other.” Mark’s messages of faith for salvation and forgiveness for salvation frame the section. It reads as a very central Christian message. First there is the importance of faith, then the possibility of punishment, then instructions for obtaining forgiveness from God.
We also may be able to find other indications of a “forgiveness for forgiveness” theme in Mark which have been partially obscured. The assumption here is that Mark intended his method of salvation to be slowly revealed by clues throughout the gospel, and the one would assume that he fully explained it in his lost ending. We can look at the parable of the measure Mark 4:24-25 (New Jerusalem). He also said to them “Take notice of what you are hearing. The standard you use will be used for you – and you will receive more besides; anyone who has, will be given more; anyone who has not, will be deprived even of what he has.” The first part of that is clearly “judge not or you will be judged even more harshly”, which is how the tradition evolves in Matthew 7. But what about giving to those that have, and taking away from those that do not? Again, I think this is “forgiveness”. Those that have forgiveness (for others) will be given forgiveness (by God), those that don’t have forgiveness for others will have their forgiveness by God taken away from them.
Luke 6:36-38 makes this connection between the parable of the measure and forgiveness. "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." However, Luke has omitted any reference to “anyone who has not will be deprived even of what he has”. He places this part of the measure parable it to two completely different contexts in Luke 8:18 and 19:26. Matthew also re-contextualizes the saying and places it in Matthew 25. “Forgiveness for forgiveness” has been obscured by Matthew and Luke. If we try to read Luke and Mark together, we can see Luke’s first two sentences are stated in the negative, and the third one, forgive and you will be forgiven, is stated in the positive, and if Luke did follow “Forgive and you will be forgiven” with, “anyone who has, will be given more; anyone who has not, will be deprived even of what he has.”, it would be fairly clear that we were talking about “forgiveness”.
There is yet another place where the forgiveness message in Mark may be partially obscured by Matthew. Mark 9:37 says that one should welcome little children, and in doing so one welcomes God. The parallel in Luke 9:48 agrees with Mark. But Matthew’s version (18:1-5) interprets this to say that one should become child-like. Mark 10:13-16 also talks about little children. This has a parallel in Luke 18:15-17 and in Matthew 19:13-15. But Matthew omits Mark's line, “In truth I tell you, anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” It’s easy to assume that, just as in Matthew, this line in Mark means that we should become child-like. But Mark has never said anything like that, and Matthew’s omission should cause us to take a closer look.
What if we take our clue from Mark 9:37 instead of from Matthew and read this line, “In truth I tell you, anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God [as they would welcome] a little child will never enter it”? Now if we say that we need to welcome little children with love and forgiveness, we can then say that we should welcome the kingdom of God with love and forgiveness. And we then have "To enter the kingdom of God, you must welcome it with love and forgiveness of others".
Then we can see that in Matthew, there seems to be an effort to obscure Mark’s forgiveness messages. Instead, Matthew has sacraments for forgiveness. In the original text of Mark, there is no mention of baptism for followers of Jesus. But, Matthew instructs baptism for followers (28:19). Regarding the Lord’s Supper, Matthew 26:29 says “Do this for forgiveness”, but Mark 14:22 does not. Then at the fig tree (Matthew 21:21), Matthew removes any reference to forgiveness. And as I have argued, Matthew has also obscured some of Mark’s other messages of forgiveness, (“salt”, “the measure”, and “like little children”). Matthew still says that we should forgive others, but he has removed any direct connection to the forgiveness of sins. “Forgiveness for forgiveness” is not Matthew’s plan of salvation.
Also, if we have correctly identified Mark’s message, then I think we would speculate that the ending of Mark 10:45 was not in the original version of Mark. “…and to give his life as a ransom for many." is found in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke, and my hypothesis would be that Luke’s copy of Mark did not have this either. The message of the original Mark here then is just a message of humility, “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant”. Mark is saying that we should become Christ-like, become the sacrifice, with the salt of the new-covenant of love and forgiveness in us. The idea that Jesus became the sacrifice *for* us would be a later idea. In Mark his sacrifice inaugurated the new covenant and was a model for us to become metaphorical sacrifices.
Mark 8:34 “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: ’If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’” If we read this in light of Mark’s message that salvation involves being loving, forgiving, and Christ-like, and take into account that Mark talks about the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18f), we can read Mark 8:34 to say that to follow Jesus in resurrection, we must become Christ-like, loving and forgiving”.
Although we should keep in mind that faith seems important for salvation in Mark too. There is Mark 9:14-29 that suggests that those that are weak in faith can be helped by prayer. Then we have Mark 2:5 – “Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, ‘My child, your sins are forgiven’”, Mark 10:52 – “Go, your faith has saved you”, and Mark 11:22 “Have faith in God”, and here we should note that Mark’s object of faith is not Jesus but God. If Mark’s object of faith is God, then as a side note, I would speculate that the end of Mark 1:15 “Repent and believe in the gospel” is not originally in Mark. The language is Matthian and the quote is not found on the lips of Jesus in Luke.
Use of parables
Given the number of messages that seem to be just below the surface in Mark, and the semi-cryptic references to the Old Testament, I think we can look at the parable of the sower in Mark 4 in a slightly different light. Mark follows the parable of the sower with a quote from Isaiah 6:9-10 “they may look and look, but never perceive, listen and listen but never understand” Then he follows the explanation of the sower parable with a saying about a lamp. “For there is nothing hidden, but it must be revealed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light. Anyone who has ears for listening should listen!” Mark is warning us as readers to be on the look-out for veiled messages.
Here is a diagram of the general structure of the three synoptics in this area.
(From http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/table.htm )
13: 1- 9 4: 1- 9 8: 4- 8 Sower Parable (Th9)
13:10-11 4:10-11 8: 9-10 Mystery of the Kingdom of God
13:12 To Those Who Have/Lack (Mt25:29) (Th41)
13:13-15 4:11-12 8:10 Reason for Parables
13:16-17 [10:23-24] Disciples' Blessedness
13:18-23 4:13-20 8:11-15 Sower Parable Interpretation
[ 5:15 ] 4:21 8:16 The Lamp (Th33:2-3)
[10:26 ] 4:22 8:17 Nothing Hidden Nor Secret (Th5:2 6:5-6)
4:23 Ears to Hear
4:24 8:18 Pay attention
[ 7: 2 ] 4:24 [ 6:38 ] The Measure You Give/Get
[13:12 ] 4:25 8:18 To Those Who Have/Lack (Th41)
4:26-29 Secret Seed Parable (v29=Th21:9)
13:24-30 Tares Parable (Th57)
13:31-32 4:30-32 [13:18-19] Mustard Seed Parable (Th20)
13:33 [13:20-21] Yeast Parable (Th96:1-2)
13:34-35 4:33-34 Jesus' Use of Parables
13:36-43 Tares Parable Interpretation
13:44 Hidden Treasure Parable (Th109)
13:45-46 Pearl Parable (Th76:1-2)
13:47-50 Dragnet Parable (Th8)
13:51-52 Treasures New & Old
[12:46-50 == 3:31-35] 8:19-21 Jesus' True Relatives (Th99)
[ 8:18 ] 4:35 8:22 Let's Go to the Other Side
[ 8:23-27] 4:36-41 8:23-25 Stilling the Storm
My speculation here is that Mark 4:29-4:34 are things from Matthew’s extended parable section and are late additions to Mark. Luke would then better reflect Mark’s original order and contents here.
Mark 4:33-34 says that Jesus would explain the parables to his disciples when they were alone. Matthew also has this but it is missing in Luke. It seems odd in Mark because the disciples are continually portrayed as failing to understand and I believe this is to clue us in as readers to look deeper. The fact that this text is out of sync with Mark’s disciples might lead us to speculate that this is a late addition to Mark, missing from Luke’s copy.
Another suspicious looking bit is in Mark 4:29, the parable of the seed growing by itself. ‘He also said, "This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come."’ This parable is only found in Mark. The last sentence refers a reaping in the harvest to come. Not only does the sentence look more typical of Matthew than Mark, and seem to reference Matthew’s “tares” parable that immediately follows in Matthew, but it does not make sense in the context of the parable. If the seed is the word that has been sown as in the parable of the sower just before it, why is it cut down? I would speculate that this section ended with the “full kernel”. This would then read like James 1:21 “…humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.”
Engaging in some extended speculation here – the mustard seed in Mark (4:30-32) might be seen as a later addition to Mark which found its way into Mark via a margin note. It shows a pattern of textual agreement similar to Mark 3-22:30. (See the discussion of the “casting out Satan controversy” in "Other stuff in Mark" below). It is not located in Luke’s Mark material, and it could be seen as Matthew’s re-write of Mark’s seed parable.
Connections to James
The themes of the measure parable, “judge not or be judged”, and “forgiveness for forgiveness”, are also echoed in the letter of James. 2:13 “Whoever acts without mercy will be judged without mercy, but mercy can afford to laugh at judgment”. James 4:12 “There is only one lawgiver and he has the power to save or to destroy. Who are you to give a verdict on your neighbor?” James also has a salt reference James 3:9 “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.”
Reading salt as a positive thing here in James is somewhat problematic, however. In Greek James uses the word for “bitter” for sea water. Then in 3:14 he refers to the “bitterness of jealousy” using the same Greek word. On the other hand reading “salt” as a positive makes his point better. His overall theme in the letter is that we must show fruits of the goodness inside us. And immediately before he refers to salt, he is saying that bad things should not come out of us. It would make more sense then to say “good cannot produce bad” than to say “bad cannot produce good”. We don’t know how well James’s first audience knew the metaphor of salt as a good thing. But, if we assume they did know it well, then James would have written “sea water” with confidence that his message would be understood with salt as a positive. James then immediately turns this meaning around.
I think what is going on here is that both the author of James and his audience are familiar with “salt” as a positive as used in Mark. An opponent of the author of James, Paul perhaps, has also used the salt sayings in Mark to argue against the need for works. An example of one reason we might see this opponent as Paul is that Paul and James disagree completely on whether Abraham was justified by faith and deeds, or by faith alone. The case against works could be made from Mark since the salt in Mark is an internal quality. The author of James is arguing against this position, and it helps his case to turn the metaphor around. If both Paul and the author of James are arguing different interpretations of the salt sayings from Mark, then this would make the date of the original Mark or at least the source for the salt metaphors in Mark fairly early.
These connections between the letter of James and the gospel of Mark, plus the reference to the fig tree in James, brings me back to the fig tree parable in Mark. As discussed above it seems quite likely that the fig tree in Mark is currently in a different location than it was originally found. So what might the fig tree have originally meant in Mark? If we take a clue from the letter of James, I think we could say that Mark may have been saying that we must bare some sort of fruit to indicate the “salt” within us. Did Mark then believe in works for salvation? Even if this was true, there is nothing to indicate he believed this any more than James did. James and Paul might be seen as two different interpretations of the salt metaphor found in Mark. Mark requires faith in God, and certain internal qualities, “salt”, love and forgiveness, and says we should forgive others. James would then be making the point that we can not really have those internal qualities without showing some sort of fruit, and Paul would be focused on the internal nature of those qualities.
If this relationship between the original gospel of Mark and the letter of James is correct, then the late changes to Mark were done by those strongly influenced by the teachings of Paul and/or Peter, who disagreed with the author of the letter of James on issues relating to faith and works. I would then see the later two synoptic gospels as more associated with followers of Peter (Matthew) and Paul (Luke).
“Q”
The general themes of after-life torment, faith and forgiveness for forgiveness cluster together in both Matthew and Luke. Luke 16 – Luke 17 has – afterlife torment, millstone for those who cause loss of faith, forgive others, power of faith. Matthew 18 has – millstone, after-life torment, forgive others, power of prayer, then a parable about the relation between God’s forgiveness, and forgiving others. That cluster, found both in Matthew and Luke, may indicate that these ideas of faith and forgiveness for forgiveness were tied together in the hypothetical “Q” document, as well as in Mark.
My hypothesis has another interesting implication for Q. Virtually every place in Mark where scholarship has pointed to Mark possibly using “Q” sayings; my hypothesis says that Matthew and Luke had similar agendas in the redaction of Mark. And if the community of Matthew corresponded with Luke, as I think is likely (see discussion of synoptic problem solutions below), then any evidence of “Q” disappears from Mark. We would probably then date the original Mark before “Q”.
Conclusion
Finally, we can look again at the closely related message in Mark 12:28-31 "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." This gives us a nice symmetry in Mark. Love God, and love your neighbor. Forgive others, and have faith in God for forgiveness.
So the main ideas presented here are
1)”Salt” in Mark is two interlocking metaphors that refer to Leviticus. There is the “salt of the old covenant” (Leviticus 2:13), and the “salt of the new covenant”. There is also the salt that must be present in cultic sacrifices to God (Leviticus 2:11), the “salt of the sacrifice of Christ” and the salt that must be in us as metaphorical sacrifices following Christ. This is obscured in later gospels.
2) “Leaven” in Mark is “what makes someone unacceptable to God”. Therefore the Pharisees and Herod are unacceptable to God. This is obscured in later gospels.
These first ideas I have tried to fully argue, and I believe they can be demonstrated to be highly probable to a neutral observer. The following ideas are possible implications that I have not tried to fully argue, but that I believe are probable.
3) Mark seems to declare the old covenant void. This is obscured by later gospels. At the very least Mark shows a consistant pattern of old/new contrasts.
4) Mark seems to believe in a purgatory, although this idea is not essential to the core argument. Mark’s “purgatory” develops more hell-like qualities in later gospels.
5) I think that Mark has a plan of salvation – “Have faith in God, and have love and forgiveness for others within you”. This is somewhat obscured by late changes to Mark and by later gospels. But the identification of “the salt of the new covenant” and “the salt of the sacrifice of Christ” specifically with “love and forgiveness”, is not essential to the core argument.
Synoptic home page