The Narrow Path Ministries

According to Robin Parry in his book "The Evangelical Universalist" he says that Jesus really did'nt speak of universalism in the gospels perhaps because his disciples were not yet ready to hear it, yet he did hint of it.
In Mark 9.42-50 Jesus gives stern warnings to avoid gehenna because it is a place of fire where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched , but he adds "for everyone will be salted with fire" which appears to be an explanation about the comments he previously made about gehenna. Keep in mind Jesus uses the word "for" which links his closing statement with the "gehenna" message he just gave and he says "everyone" including folks in gehenna and folks not in gehenna will be salted with fire, which since it includes everyone seems to use fire to mean "purification."

Hi steve7150,

This is a good illustration of the weakness of universalist arguments. They do not have any scripture in their favor other than that which can easily be understood in other ways. You are correct that the context of Mark 9:49 is about the judgement of gehenna. In verse 49 "fire" may be an idiomatic Hebrew expression translated literally into Greek. In Hebrew, to salt something could mean "to destroy" it, as when Abimelech destroyed Shechem by sowing it with salt, Judges 9:45. Jesus would then be saying "for everyone (cast into gehenna) will be salted (destroyed) with fire."

Makes perfect sense in the context. This one seems to be more supportive of the annihilationist position than being an argument for universalism. So much for Parry's "hint".

If interested, here is a source for the view expressed above:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hil ... GTJ-85.pdf

God bless, Homer

Makes perfect sense in the context. This one seems to be more supportive of the annihilationist position than being an argument for universalism. So much for Parry's "hint".





Good response Homer yet salt primarily was a preservative at that time and did'nt Jesus tell his disciples "You are the salt of the earth" Matt 5.13.

But Parry's point is that Jesus said "everyone" will be salted with fire. He does not only apply it to those in gehenna. Parry's suggestion is that "salted" speaks of purification (not obvious, but possible), and that Jesus is saying that, one way or another, people will be purified. This will be a fiery ordeal whether accepted voluntarily in this life, or whether in gehenna after the judgment. In the context, Jesus mentions the desirability of one's voluntarily cutting off his own hand or foot, or gouging out his own eye, rather than to end up in gehenna. Though literal self-mutilation is not likely to be His intention, mortification of the deeds of the body (Rom.8:13), self-denial (Matt.16:12), and submission to hardships for Christ's sake ("fiery trials"— 1 Peter 4:12) may be included in the choice Jesus is recommending. Thus, if it is so that "everyone will be [purified] but fire", one way or the other, this could mean that the fire of judgment against sin may be chosen voluntarily in this life, or involuntarily in the next. "If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged [by God]" (1 Cor.11:31).

Hi Bro Steve!

You wrote:

But Parry's point is that Jesus said "everyone" will be salted with fire. He does not only apply it to those in gehenna.

I must ask who it is who "does not only apply it to those in gehenna"? Parry or Jesus? If it is Jesus, how would Parry know this? From the Greek text we have "everyone" translated from the adjective pas which can easily be shown, from other places in scripture, that it often means less than all or everyone. For example see Luke 16:16:

16. “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone (pas) is pressing into it.

Here everyone can not mean all people in the world, and it doesn't even mean all in Israel, or even those Jesus was speaking to, for we see in the context the words were spoken to the Pharisees who were scoffing at Him. "Everyone" in Mark 9:49 can easily be understood to refer to all who are condemned.

Similarly the universalist's argument from Act's 3:21, "the restitution of all (pas) things", proves nothing for their cause. It is so weak an argument that it is hardly worth a rebuttal except if nothing is said they will think they have something favoring their system (I know, they will think it regardless).

God bless, Homer

Hi Homer,

I think every honest person would say that the statements in Mark 9:49 are difficult.

For those who don't want to look it up, here it is:

"For everyone will be seasoned with fire, and every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt. Salt is good, but if the salt loses its flavor, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace with one another." (vv.49-50)

While it may be true that pas ("everyone"), though meaning "all" sometimes serves as a hyperbole meaning "all of a class," or "nearly all," or a number of other non-literal, idiomatic uses, it still is normal interpretive procedure to take a word literally unless it makes little sense to do so, or unless some other sense has a much better claim upon it.

Our choices, in this verse, seem to be 1) "all, without exception," or 2) "all who go to gehenna." The choice between them is somewhat affected by the question of how the image of "salt" is being used. Our decision between these choices may be, to a large degree, intuitive, but context seems all in favor of only one of the options.

Your view is that "salt" refers to destruction, on the strength of a few cases where enemies are said to have salted certain fields, rendering them useless for crop production. This seems to my mind to be special pleading, since it is only in this very narrow connection that "salt" could reasonably be said to have a destructive, or even a negative, connotation. We should assume that the term "salt," used as a verb by Jesus, would carry some sort of connotation in the minds of His disciples—either positive or negative. Since Jesus did not make any mention of a field or the productivity of land in this context, there seems no reason for his disciples to think of salt in this connection—the only one in which a negative association could be imagined.

On the other hand, in the immediate context (vv.49-50), the image of salt is used three other times—all positively. "Every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt" is in the same sentence as that which we are considering. Certainly, adding salt to a sacrifice was a condition for making it acceptable to God (Lev.2:13)—and had no negative effects upon it. We would have to say that the association of salt with ritual sacrifices, in the same sentence, is more likely to have informed the meaning of salt than some other association (e.g., with salting a field).

Then Jesus said, "Salt is good," and "Have salt in yourselves" (v.50). These statements certainly give the disciples reason to believe that Jesus had something positive in mind when speaking of salt (as did Paul when he used the term "seasoned with salt" in Colossians 4:6). In fact, I am not sure one could find one instance of salt being used with a negative force in the New Testament.

I think this rather stacks the deck in favor of "salt" having a positive meaning in the disputed clause. This is especially true in light of the statement that "every sacrifice [in order to be made acceptable to God] shall be seasoned with salt" is in the same sentence, probably with illustrative intent. If salting, in this context, refers to making something acceptable to be offered to God (as seems the only reasonable option to me), then the pas (everyone) could still refer to only those in gehenna, if you prefer. It would suggest that they are being "salted"—or being made acceptable—"with fire." This seems to be an encouraging interpretation for the universalist. Reasonable alternative interpretations do not readily present themselves for our assessment.

Of course, I still think that pas is more likely to mean "everyone, without exception" for the following reasons:

1) There is nothing in Jesus' previous statements that speak of any group or class of people who are in gehenna, and who might be the antecedent for the pronoun "all." There is only a warning to avoid going there;

2) The fact that, in the next sentence, Jesus tells His disciples (who would not be in gehenna) that they too must be salted ("Have salt in yourselves") militates against the idea that Jesus is using "salt" in a sense that only applies to the lost.

These are my thoughts. I don't know if Parry would argue the point in this way. I don't depend upon him for my observations.

This is a good illustration of the weakness of universalist arguments. They do not have any scripture in their favor other than that which can easily be understood in other ways.

Actually, this is a weakness of all positions on this topic—especially the traditional one.

On the other hand, in the immediate context (vv.49-50), the image of salt is used three other times—all positively. "Every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt" is in the same sentence as that which we are considering. Certainly, adding salt to a sacrifice was a condition for making it acceptable to God (Lev.2:13)—and had no negative effects upon it. We would have to say that the association of salt with ritual sacrifices, in the same sentence, is more likely to have informed the meaning of salt than some other association (e.g., with salting a field).

It seems that some scribe added "Every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt" to the words which Mark wrote. Most modern translations do not contain it.