2.1 A simple hyperbole?

Most scholars interpret Jesus’ order to amputate one's hand or foot or gouge out one's eye, if these limbs are a cause for scandal, as an example of hyperbolic language: although self-maiming is an extreme act, it is considered by Jesus better than eternal condemnation. The function of this hyperbole is variously interpreted. A first group of scholars thinks that it intends to emphasise the inestimable value of the kingdom of God; writes F. J. Moloney: ‘It is better […] to be without a hand, a foot or an eye, than to miss the opportunity to enter the life of God's kingdom. This point can only be appreciated when one takes into account that women and men usually have two hands, two feet, two eyes. It can therefore be done without a hand, a foot or an eye; but it cannot be done without the gift of life in the Kingdom’.Footnote ⁵ A similar content is consistent with other teachings of Jesus in Mark and in the Synoptic tradition. To inherit eternal life (Mark 10.17), identified with the kingdom of God (Mark 10.23, 25), a man is exhorted by Jesus to sell all of his possessions (Mark 10.21). In the parables of the treasure in a field and of the precious pearl, belonging to the Sondergut of Matthew, the kingdom of God is compared to priceless goods, for which it is worth renouncing anything (Matt 13.44–6). A second group of authors intends the hyperbolic language in Mark 9.43–7 as an expression of demanding discipleship. Often, these interpreters read these logia against the background of the requirements for discipleship established by Jesus earlier (Mark 8.34–9.1): denying oneself, carrying one's cross and losing one's life because of him and the Gospel. The willingness to sacrifice a part of one's own body is likened to these precepts: Jesus would demand from each one of his followers to remove any obstacle that prevents discipleship, even at the cost of their bodily integrity.Footnote ⁶

In support of this interpretation is the consistency of these sayings with some relevant contents of Mark's Gospel, such as the kingdom of God and the discipleship, which is the main theme of the ‘way section’ (Mark 8.27–10.52), where our logia are found. But, in our opinion, these interpretations leave two questions unanswered. First, how to reconcile them with the remaining teachings of Jesus in Mark 9.33–50, which do not concern the kingdom or the conditions for discipleship, but rather the welcome of the little ones? Secondly, why does Jesus choose as hyperbole the amputation of a limb or giving up of an eye to emphasise the immeasurable value of the kingdom or the cost of discipleship? Appealing to some Old Testament passages, which forbid making cuttings on one's own body (Lev 19.28; 21.5; Deut 14.1; 1 Kings 18.28; Zech 13.6), some authors justify this choice with the horrifying reaction that images such as those used by Jesus would have aroused in a Jewish audience: better to access life in the terrible condition of being impaired than to end up physically intact in Gehenna!Footnote ⁷ But these texts do not mention maimed people. Rather, they forbid the Israelites to make cuttings on their body, a practice widespread in the cults (especially funerary) of the nations close to Israel. Therefore, it is not here that the background of the logia in Mark 9.43–7 must be sought.

2.2 A moral interpretation?

Several authors read the sayings in Mark 9.43–7 as an invitation to break with sin. In relation to some Old Testament passages (Job 31.5–7; Prov 6.17–18), these scholars refer to the Jewish belief that sinful instincts lie in the body organs, thus interpreted as a cause of evil deeds. In this perspective, Jesus would remind his interlocutors of the need to break with their sins, which prevent access to the kingdom of God.Footnote ⁸ This proposal too is not without problems. Its major difficulty is the inconsistency with the remaining teachings of Jesus in Mark 9.33–50: it is not clear why Jesus goes from warning against a specific case (the scandal caused to the little ones: Mark 9.42) to a generic warning against sin. Furthermore, without questioning the metaphorical meaning of the logia in Mark 9.43–7, it is to be noted that amputating a single hand or a single foot and gouging out a single eye would not exclude the possibility of sin definitively, since the other limb or the second eye could as well cause scandal.

There is another similar interpretation, put forward by some authors, who identify the scandals caused by the hand, foot or eye with some sexual sins. Based on some rabbinic texts (m. Nid. 2.1; b. Nid. 13b), according to which those who commit such sins are doomed to destruction after their death, these scholars think that the logia of Jesus are inspired by an ancient tradition, later merged with the rabbinic literature. In the above passages of the Mishnah and the Babylonian Talmud, man is forbidden to touch his genitals, a clear reference to masturbation. The scandal of the hand should be associated (Mark 9.43) with this sin: in support of this, some other Jewish texts can be quoted, where the hand is linked with sexual sins (cf. Cant. 5.4; Isa 57.8; 1QS 7.15). The scandal of the foot should instead be identified with adultery, since in some Old Testament passages the feet are a euphemism for male genitalia (Exod 4.25; Judg 3.24; Ruth 3.7; 2 Sam 11.8; Isa 6.2). Finally, although the above-mentioned rabbinic texts do not speak of it, the scandal of the eye would correspond to the sensual gaze. In this perspective, the previous saying about the scandal caused to children should be read as a harsh warning against pederasty.Footnote ⁹ Several remarks allow for excluding this interpretation. First, on the methodological level, the use of rabbinic literature as a key for the Gospels requires great caution, because the latter predate the former. Second, the lack of an explicit reference to the scandal of the eye in m. Nid. 2.1; b. Nid. 13b makes this intertextual connection imperfect. Third, the sexual theme has nothing to do with the co-text of Mark 9.33–50, including the saying about the scandal caused to the little ones. In fact, even if in Mark 9.42 Jesus intends to refer to children (which is far from certain), A. Descamps is right when he notes: ‘Il ne semble pas que, parmi les Juifs du temps de Jésus, les désordres sexuels aient été particulièrement fréquents dans le domaine des rapports avec les enfants; on ne voit là rien de comparable avec les vices du monde gréco-romain (pédérastie)’.Footnote ¹⁰

2.3 A community interpretation?

Given that some texts in Graeco-Roman and New Testament literature use the human body as a metaphor to refer to a political, social or religious group,Footnote ¹¹ some authors put forward a community interpretation of the sayings of Mark 9.43–7. Most of them read these logia as an exhortation, addressed to the disciples, to remove the harmful members from their community, just as a doctor amputates the limbs damaging to the body.Footnote ¹² Assuming this perspective, I. H. Henderson interprets Mark 9.42–50 as a teaching addressed to the community leaders, while other authors think that its members are the recipients of Jesus’ words: they have to separate themselves from those leaders who prove unfit for their role.Footnote ¹³

Certainly, this reading has the advantage of suggesting an interpretation consistent with the logion on the scandal caused to the little ones (Mark 9.42): the community would be urged to excise all those who cause its weakest members to stumble. However, the community interpretation of Mark 9.43–7 also shows significant difficulties. First, the text does not contain clues that make it possible to indicate the community as being referred to in the second person singular which is used in these sayings. Secondly, can a community purged of its members who bring it scandal be considered one-eyed, one-handed, or lame? Moreover, would not it be contradictory that, shortly before, Jesus invited the disciples to an inclusive attitude towards those outside their group (Mark 9.38–40) and now exhorts them to exclude someone from the community? Finally, it is unlikely that Jesus drew on a mostly Graeco-Roman background (where the metaphor of the body occurs frequently); rather, it is more likely that he used Jewish imagery.Footnote ¹⁴

2.4 A martyrological interpretation?

This last interpretation has been proposed by B. van Iersel, who suggests an Old Testament background for the logia of Mark 9.43–7: the story of a Jewish woman who, together with her seven children, suffered torture and death from King Antiochius IV Epiphanes during the Maccabean revolt. They are willing to be maimed in their limbs in order not to deny the faith and customs of their fathers and announce to the king the eternal punishment which will be inflicted on him (2 Macc 7.1–42). In this perspective, Jesus would be urging his disciples not to apostatise from the faith, at the cost of being deprived even of their physical integrity.Footnote ¹⁵

Some objections can be raised against this reading too. First, van Iersel interprets the self-maiming literally, while here a metaphorical meaning is more likely. Indeed, as already noted, if Jesus meant a real amputation of one's own limbs that cause scandal, it would not make sense to cut off only one hand or one foot or to gouge out just one eye.Footnote ¹⁶ Secondly, unlike the text of 2 Maccabees, where the bodily injuries are a punishment inflicted by the tyrant, Jesus refers to self-maiming. Third, the texts of 2 Maccabees and of Mark envisage a different fate for the bodies in the future: while the Jewish martyrs hoped that, in the resurrection of the dead, God would have restored their maimed limbs (2 Macc 7.11; 14.46), Jesus promises one-handed, one-eyed, or crippled people the entry into life, without implying the restoration of physical integrity. Finally, although it corresponds to other instructions from Jesus on discipleship (Mark 8.34–9.1), this interpretation is not consistent with the co-text of Mark 9.33–50.Footnote ¹⁷

3.1 Mark 9.43–7 in its Jewish context

In the Old Testament, there are several texts shedding light on the way in which maimed people were held in relation to a community or a group. The first relevant text is Lev 21.16–24. Contained in the wide section of the Holiness Code (Lev 17.1–26.46), this text is part of a passage that includes norms concerning priests (Lev 21.1–24). These verses forbid men with physical defects to perform some priestly functions. Among the twelve cases of bodily impairment listed, there are also those mentioned by Jesus in Mark 9.43–7: the list begins with the blind and the lame while, later, it also alludes to those who have a broken hand. These men are prevented from coming to offer the ‘bread of God’ (Lev 21.17), that is the burnt offerings (Lev 21.21), a prerogative of the Levite priests; a fortiori, they must not go as far as the veil (Lev 21.23), which could be passed through only by the high priest (Lev 4.6; 16.2, 12, 15; 24.3). The reason for this prohibition is grounded in the idea of God's holiness, according to which only someone or something sound can stand in the presence of God. In fact, the priest's physical integrity corresponds to the sanctity of the worship he offers.Footnote ¹⁹ For the same reason, in the next chapter (Lev 22.22–4), it is explicitly forbidden to offer to the Lord animals with the same physical defects as those preventing the performance of priestly functions. Based on the same conception, similar norms about the physical integrity of the priests are also found outside Israel, such as some texts of Mesopotamian and Graeco-Roman literature show.Footnote ²⁰

Nevertheless, the text of Lev 21.16–24 clarifies that Levites with physical impairments were not ruled out from the priestly tribe. In fact, they could eat the flesh of sacrifices and other foods offered to the Lord, among things considered both holy and most holy (Lev 21.22; Ezek 44.13). In the first group, there are the priestly parts of the peace offerings (Lev 7.31–4), of the firstborn of the animals (Num 18.15–19), of the first fruits of the harvest (Num 18.12–13; Ezek 44.30) and of the tithes paid by the Israelites (Num 18.25–32; Ezek 44.30). In the second one, the Law includes the priestly parts of the sacrifices for sin (Lev 6.22; Num 18.9; Ezek 42.13; 44.29) and repayment (Lev 7.1, 6; 14.13; Num 18.9; Ezek 42.13; 44.29), and those of the offerings (Lev 2.3, 10; 6.9–11; Num 18.9; Ezek 42.13; 44.29) and the loaves placed every Saturday on the golden table before the Lord (Lev 24.5–9). In this way, Levites with physical defects were also assured of the necessary sustenance, even more necessary, if an impairment made it difficult to carry out a job. Additionally, the prohibition concerned officiating in the meeting tent and at the altar of sacrifices, but it did not prevent access to the sanctuary, where they could perform secondary services, such as room cleaning and maintenance or helping other priests.Footnote ²¹ In reference to the Second Temple, some rabbinic texts mention priests with physical defects who perform some ancillary tasks related to worship, such as the sound of the trumpet in the sanctuary (t. Sot. 7.16; y. Yom. 1.1) or the blessing in the courtyard (t. Sot. 7.8).

These data highlight the condition of physically impaired Levites in relation to their tribe. While remaining part of their group, having certain rights and carrying out some cult functions, they are excluded from the sacrificial offerings, which in Levitical worship is ‘a major part of a priest's vocation’.Footnote ²² Therefore, regarding these Levites, T. Hieke is right to conclude: ‘Er ist von der mit hohem Ansehen verbundenen priesterlichen Haupttätigkeit ausgeschlossen und nicht (mehr) auf der gleichen Ebene wie seine Priesterkollegen ohne körperlichen Schaden’.Footnote ²³ In this perspective, it is possible to speak of a minority state in which these priests were within their tribe.Footnote ²⁴

A similar idea is found in the text of Deut 23.2, albeit with considerable differences. Unlike Lev 21.16–24, this passage does not allude to multiple conditions of impairment, but only to one of those listed in Leviticus: being a eunuch or maiming of genitals, due not to illness or accident, but to a free choice, taken for political or religious reasons.Footnote ²⁵ Also in this passage, maimed people are mentioned in relation to their community: Deut 23.2–9 lists those who cannot be admitted to the congregation of the Lord. When the Old Testament refers to it or to the assembly of the Israelites (with the Hebrew noun קָהָל), almost always the texts denote the community gathered for a cult celebration,Footnote ²⁶ or to listen to the word of the LordFootnote ²⁷ or convened to the meeting tent or the Jerusalem temple.Footnote ²⁸ The same meanings can be found for the corresponding verb Footnote ²⁹.(קהל) Therefore, as often noted, the congregation of the Lord which the prescriptions of Deut 23.2–9 refer to is not to be identified tout-court with the people of Israel, but with the community that gathers to worship.Footnote ³⁰ Therefore, the prohibition to admit maimed people to this assembly finds its reason in the same background as Lev 21.16–24: what is physically impaired cannot be in contact with God's holiness.Footnote ³¹ At the same time, the condition of maiming had consequences on taking part in community life: while dwelling among the other Israelites, men with physical defects could not be present at a relevant community moment such as worship. P. C. Craigie rightly concludes: ‘Thus to enter the assembly of the Lord would indicate a person who became a true Israelite and who therefore shared in the worship of the Lord. The expression is somewhat narrower in its intent than Israel, taken as a whole, for there would be resident aliens and others who, though a part of the community, were nevertheless not full members of it’.Footnote ³²

The hindrance to taking part in worship for maimed people could also be reminded in 2 Sam 5.8, where some interpreters think that, in the story of the conquest of Jerusalem, the author reports an aetiology about the prohibition to enter the temple for the blind and lame people.Footnote ³³ However, this interpretation is not shared unanimously.Footnote ³⁴ In any case, these words echo the mockery placed on the lips of the Jebusites (2 Sam 5.6), who thought Jerusalem so strong that the blind and lame (weak people) would have been enough to ward off David's attack on their city.Footnote ³⁵ Therefore, this passage confirms the marginal condition which people with physical defects experience in their communities, whether they are religious or social ones.Footnote ³⁶

Our appealing to these texts, concerning marginalised people because of their physical impairments, does not intend to suggest that Jesus’ sayings in Mark 9.43–7 are directly inspired by them: the lack of lexical contacts between these passages and our logia makes this unlikely. On the other hand, in light of these passages, one cannot exclude the possibility that Jesus keeps in his mind that maimed people were considered marginal. This perspective was known in the Judaism of the New Testament era, as confirmed by several passages of the Dead Sea Scrolls, where physical impairment involves the exclusion from the community. Outlining the eschatological Israel which, unlike the remaining people, will be led by Zadokite priests and will keep the covenant with God, the Rule of the Congregation rules out maimed people from the community of the final era. The reason is like that one reported in the texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy: God's holiness, represented by his angels, dwells in the assembly.

The same perspective can be found in the Damascus Document, where the list of people to be kept out of the community includes fewer categories of maimed people, some of which are not mentioned in Leviticus, like insane minds and children: ‘And no one stupid or deranged, [should enter]; and anyone feeble-[minded and insane], those with sightless [eyes, the lame or one who stumbles, or a deaf person, or an under-age boy, none of these], should enter [the congregation, since the holy angels are in its midst]’ (CD 15.15–17). In the backdrop of the eschatological war that, at the end of time, will see the sons of light, who will fight on the side of God, against the sons of darkness, deployed alongside Belial, the War Scroll rules out some categories from the first group, for the same reasons: ‘And no lame, blind, paralysed person nor any man who has an indelible blemish on his flesh, nor any man suffering from uncleanness in his flesh, none of these will go out to war with them. All these shall be volunteers for war, perfect in spirit and body, and ready for the day of vengeance. And every man who has not cleansed himself of his “spring” on the day of battle will not go down with them, for the holy angels are together with their armies’ (1QM 7.4–6).Footnote ³⁸ Finally, the Temple Scroll prevents the blind men from entering the holy city, where the temple of God is (11QTemple 45.12–14). These texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls agree that people with bodily impairments were marginalised, if not ruled out, by the community.

A condition of social marginalisation for maimed people is attested in several New Testament passages. The blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10.46) or some anonymous blind men (Matt 20.30; Luke 18.35) lie like beggars along the road out of Jericho; even the man blind from birth, in the Fourth Gospel, shares the same fate (John 9.8). In addition to the blind, crippled and other sick people lie as beggars at the gates or under the galleries of the Temple (Matt 21.14; John 5.3; Acts 3.1–2). The blind, crippled and lame, together with the poor, are contrasted by Jesus with rich people, relatives, or friends (Luke 14.12–13). These sayings of Jesus are taken up in the subsequent parable of the great feast (Luke 14.16–24) where, instead of those who declined the invitation to the banquet, marginal people are gathered, including the blind and the crippled, whom the master's servants find on the streets and alleys of their town (Luke 14.21).

In view of this brief survey about the condition of physically impaired people in the Jewish imagery, one can agree with the conclusions of S. M. Olyan: ‘“Defects” are typically devalued in biblical discourse. Their negative construction is made manifest through the text's efforts to stigmatise and marginalise those who possess them. Persons with “defects” are stigmatised and assigned marginal social positions.’Footnote ³⁹

3.2 Mark 9.43–7 in its co-text

Several authors have attempted to interpret the logia of Mark 9.43–7 in view of the section of Mark 9.33–50, which focuses on the question of greatness within the community of Jesus’ disciples. Usually, reading these sayings in connection with the previous logion (Mark 9.42), they interpret the scandal caused by one's own limbs as the stumbling block to the faith of the least in the community.Footnote ⁴⁰ But, while grasping this connection, none of these scholars explains why Jesus resorts to the images of the amputation of a limb and giving up of an eye. In view of the consideration of physically impaired people in the Jewish environment, one can now focus on the co-text where Mark places our sayings and show its coherence of meaning.

This section is opened by Jesus’ question to the disciples on the theme of their discussion on the way to Capernaum (Mark 9.33). After clarifying, as an omniscient narrator, that the disciples had discussed who was the greatest among them (Mark 9.34), highlighting their misunderstanding of the announcement of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection (Mark 9.30–2), Mark reports the teaching to the Twelve. Here one can observe a pattern recurring three times in the section of Mark 8.27–10.52: 1) Jesus’ announcement of the passion (Mark 8.31; 9.31; 10.33–4); 2) disciples’ misunderstanding (Peter in Mark 8.32–3; the Twelve in Mark 9.32–4; James and John in Mark 10.35–40); 3) Jesus’ instruction (Mark 8.34–9.1; 9.35–50; 10.41–5). In this case, Jesus’ teaching opens with a fundamental statement: whoever wants to be first must be the last and the servant of all (Mark 9.35). This general principle is the key to understanding the brief episodes and Jesus’ logia, narrated in the subsequent section. Jesus immediately concretises the principle just enunciated with an action expressing its meaning: he places a child amid the Twelve, embraces him and indicates in the reception of children the criterion for the welcome to be reserved for him (Mark 9.36–7). Now, since in the ancient cultural imagery, both in the Jewish and in the Graeco-Roman environment, childhood was considered a minority state from which one passes through education, and since children were subjects without rights and dependent in everything on the paterfamilias (in the Jewish context they were not responsible for the observance of the Law), it is clear that here Jesus assimilates the welcome towards him to that reserved to marginal people.Footnote ⁴¹

In continuity with these words is the episode of the exorcist outside the circle of disciples (Mark 9.38–40). Jesus corrects the exclusivist position of the Twelve, who had tried to prevent a man not belonging to their group from casting out demons in the name of Jesus, with an inclusive perspective, which considers on its side those who, although not part of their circle, do not oppose it. Following Jesus must not arouse presumptions of superiority and exclusivity; rather, the disciples are exhorted to foster the inclusion of those who are on the fringe of, if not outside, their group.Footnote ⁴²

The next saying (Mark 9.41) functions as a transition. On the one hand, it is linked to the previous verses by the conjunction γάρ and the catchword ὄνομα and continues to focus on the relationship between the disciples (Χριστοῦ ἐστɛ) and those who, although not part of their group, work in their favour, even if only with the offer of a glass of water. On the other hand, this logion introduces the following ones. On the formal side, the formulation ὃς ἄν is taken up in the following saying (Mark 9.42). In terms of content, the scandal towards the little ones is antithetical to the benevolent gesture of offering the glass of water (likely, by those who are not disciples), while the idea of reward (μισθός) forestalls that of eschatological remuneration, which will be found in the logia about the scandal.

At this point, Mark inserts the saying that urges the disciples to beware of scandalising the little ones who believe (Mark 9.42). Decisive for the interpretation of this logion are the notions of scandal and littleness. In their broadest meaning, the noun σκάνδαλον and the verb σκανδαλίζω denote an obstacle, a stumble, or a trap. In the Old Testament, in addition to this more generic meaning, these words sometimes refer to the peoples close to Israel who, with their idols, risk diverting the people from faith in their God (cf. Josh 23.13; Judg 2.3; Ps 105.36 LXX; Wis 14.11; Hos 4.17). In the wake of this meaning, the New Testament vocabulary of scandal often denotes the lack of faithfulness to the word of Jesus and the turning away from faith in him and in the Gospel;Footnote ⁴³ the other Markan occurrences of σκανδαλίζω go in the same direction (Mark 4.17; 6.3; 14.27, 29). Therefore, warning not to scandalise the little ones who believe, Jesus is cautioning each of his disciples against putting a stumbling block or obstacle to their faith.Footnote ⁴⁴

Who are the little ones (μικροί) who must not be scandalised? They cannot be the children (παιδία) mentioned above (Mark 9.36–7): the believers in Jesus cannot be limited to children.Footnote ⁴⁵ Also problematic is the identification of the group of the little ones with all the disciples, as if μικροί was their alternative name.Footnote ⁴⁶ The demonstrative adjective τούτων, with its anaphoric meaning, is a clue that suggests searching for the referent of the term μικρῶν in the previous verses. If so, the most likely solution is that τούτων refers to the characters mentioned earlier, such as the exorcist outside the disciples’ group and the one who gives them even a glass of water. In that case, it might come as a surprise that Jesus speaks of them as believers (τῶν πιστɛυόντων). However, if shortly before he had pointed out the prayer, that is an expression of faith (cf. Mark 11.22–4), as a condition for casting out demons (Mark 9.29), then the unknown exorcist met by the Twelve can be considered a believer. Similarly, since it is made in virtue of his belonging to Christ, the offer of a glass of water to a disciple expresses not only a vague kindness, but a good bent for Jesus.Footnote ⁴⁷ In this sense, the little ones not to be scandalised are believers who have not yet expressed their faith explicitly following Jesus and, therefore, remain on the fringe of the disciples’ group.Footnote ⁴⁸ The choice to refer to them with the term μικροί emphasises the opposition with the disciples’ desire to be great, which had made Jesus’ teaching necessary (Mark 9.34). Ultimately, Jesus urges the Twelve and, together with them, whoever sets out to follow him (ὃς ἄν) not to claim a superiority that rules out those who do not belong to their circle, but rather to show their greatness in welcoming them.

It is now possible to note a full consistency of the imagery in Mark 9.43–7 with its co-text. Jesus says that the entry into eternal life without a hand, a foot or an eye is preferable to the preservation of physical integrity if the latter has Gehenna as its fate. If, as it has been pointed out, the bodily impairment implied a marginal position within a community or a group, one can suggest that in Mark 9.43–7 Jesus is urging the disciples to make themselves last, thus avoiding stumbling in their own following, in order to enter the kingdom of God. H. Fleddermann is right, when he concludes: ‘Ultimately, the disciples are not scandalised by their hands or feet or eyes, but by their striving for honor, their lack of understanding, their unbelief, their steadfast refusal to accept the cross’.Footnote ⁴⁹ Therefore, Jesus tells his disciples not only to beware of causing scandal to the little ones but also to share their minority state. A similar interpretation is consistent with the initial content in Mark 9.35: whoever wants to be first must become last and servant of all. Therefore, in Jesus’ metaphorical language, inspired by the Jewish context outlined above, physical integrity expresses full belonging to the community. However, if this belonging makes one presume one's own superiority over other members of the community, and thus it becomes a stumbling block, not only for the little ones (Mark 9.42) but also for one's own discipleship, Jesus suggests taking up a marginal condition like that of maimed people, exemplified by the one-handed (v. 43), the lame (v. 45) and the one-eyed (v. 47). It is better to be last and enter the kingdom of God than to be first and suffer eternal condemnation!

The final verses (Mark 9.49–50) complete this teaching. Here Jesus uses the metaphor of salt, for whose interpretation it is necessary to start from the two final imperatives (v. 50b), arranged in a synonymic parallelism (ἔχɛτɛ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα/ɛἰρηνɛύɛτɛ ἐν ἀλλήλοις).Footnote ⁵⁰ The order to have salt in oneself is to be understood as an urging to a peaceful coexistence with the other members of the community. This meaning is confirmed by several passages in ancient, Jewish and Graeco-Roman literary texts, where salt is the symbol of an inviolable covenant or communion, with God and among human beings.Footnote ⁵¹ Therefore, the logia on salt exhort the disciples to live peacefully with each other (Mark 9.50: ἐν ἀλλήλοις), in opposition to the discussion on the greatness that had triggered Jesus’ teaching (Mark 9.34: πρὸς ἀλλήλους).Footnote ⁵² This harmony among believers can be achieved only at the cost of trials and renunciations (symbolised by the salting fire in Mark 9.49), like that one of any claim to greatness, which risks hindering oneself (Mark 9.43–7) and the little ones of the community (Mark 9.42) from following Jesus.Footnote ⁵³

Therefore, although it does not agree with the interpretation provided by them, this paper shares the hermeneutic perspective of Llewelyn and Robinson to clarify the meaning of the sayings in Mark 9.43–7: it ‘is dependent on where an expression is situated in terms of its co-text and context’.Footnote ⁵⁴