Mark 9:49,50

Mark 9:49-50. These verses, which have no parallel, form the most difficult passage in this Gospel. The difficulty is perhaps lessened, by following the most ancient authorities and omitting the second clause. It is agreed that the interpolated clause, ‘every sacrifice,' etc., refers to Leviticus 2:13. As the salt is there expressly called ‘the salt of the covenant of thy God,' a good sense was designed to be given by the interpolation, and Mark 9:50 equally requires such a good sense. As to the ‘fire' the immediate connection would point to eternal fire, but as there is a refiner's fire also, this sense is not absolutely necessary; nor on the other hand must the ‘fire' and ‘salt' be regarded as two different figures for exactly the same thing. Nor will any interpretation be satisfactory which does not fully bring out the meaning of the word ‘for.'

Explanations: (1.) For (giving a reason why it is better to cut off, etc.) every one (all without exception, those who thus deny themselves and those cast into hell) shall be salted with fire (as the symbol of Divine purity which either purifies or consumes, so that both refining fire and eternal fire are included under the same figure). The interpolated clause will then be explained: ‘And every sacrifice'(those accepted of God are here referred to, not those rejected) ‘shall be salted with salt' (with ‘the salt of the covenant of thy God'). All must enter the fire of God's purity in some way; those who offer themselves ‘a living sacrifice' are seasoned with salt, are preserved in the fire; while others are salted only with fire, the same fire of Divine purity becoming eternal fire of judgment to them. This is a strong reason why the self-denials just enjoined should be made, while the connection with the next verse becomes plain.

Salt is good (see Matthew 5:13, and in this case it is the preservative salt, whether the doubtful clause be omitted or not, the salt of the covenant, so that the ‘fire' only purifies): but if the salt have lost its saltness (if you profess to be in the covenant and are not, if the failure to cut off the offending member shows this to be the case) wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves (‘this grace of God, this spirit of adoption, this pledge of the covenant'), and (as a fruit, with a reference now to the strife with which the conversation began, Mark 9:34) have peace one with another. This view is unaffected by the omission of the doubtful clause. (2.) Another interpretation agrees with this, except in making the salt and fire identical: this difference appears only in the clause: ‘and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt,' which is thus interpreted: this very fire with which every one shall be salted, becomes to God's people a preserving salt. The objection to this is that it takes ‘and' as = just as, and makes two figurative expressions identical. (3.) Another view takes the two clauses of Mark 9:49 as opposed: ‘Every one' (i.e., of those condemned) ‘shall be salted with fire, and'(on the contrary) ‘every sacrifice'(God's people) ‘shall be salted with salt.' This unnecessarily limits the words ‘every one,' and does not account for the use of the word ‘salted' in the same clause. Such a direct opposition would be expressed by ‘burned with fire' and ‘salted with salt' Further, the idea of purification is obscured, and the reason presented for the preceding exhortations is less forcible. (4.) The most objectionable view is that which applies the whole of Mark 9:49 to the lost ‘For,' in that case, introduces merely a reason for the eternal punishment. This view too takes ‘and' as just as: ‘Every one' (condemned)' is salted with fire' (preserved from annihilation, so that the punishment can be eternal), ‘just as every sacrifice,' etc. The connection with Mark 9:50 is very forced on this view: ‘Salt is good' (i.e., although thus used as a figure for preservation to punishment, it is also a figure for what is good), etc. Besides, ‘the salt of the covenant,' which is the most obvious reference, is thrown out of view, and meanings given to the figures which are contrary to the analogy of Scripture. The first view is to be preferred, as most grammatical, most true to the correct reading, and most in keeping with the context.