Lightfoot and Mark

[sopho]

It is not a defense of hellism. I have read this commentary of Lightfoot that maked me doubt.

First I read a comment of mark 9:48:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
48. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched—See on [1468]Mt 5:30; The “unquenchablesness” of this fire has already been brought before us (see on [1469]Mt 3:12); and the awfully vivid idea of an undying worm, everlastingly consuming an unconsumable body, is taken from the closing words of the evangelical prophet (Isa 66:24), which seem to have furnished the later Jewish Church with its current phraseology on the subject of future punishment (see Lightfoot).

So the worm who does not die was a phraseology to denote eternal conscious torment in ancient times?
I went to Lightfoot commentaries in Mark 9. I did´t find nothing about worms not dying as a phrase of eternal torment in ancient jews, but I found this:

either shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Upon which place thus the Jews write; "‘They shall go forth and look,’ &c. Is not the finger of a man, if it be put into the fire, immediately burnt? But God gives power (or being) to wicked men to receive torments."

What jew wrote it? Is it the Talmud? I did not found it. If this is the common interpretation of worms who does not die, so I have a problem with conditionalism and universalism.

That very learned man mentioned before called the common reading very improper. For what is it, saith he, to season with fire? Let me retort, And what is it to fire with salt? And yet that sense occurs very frequently in the Talmudists. For in them is to burn, (which it signifies properly indeed) and very frequently it is, to corrupt any thing with too much salting, so that it cannot be eaten: to be fired with salt. So in this place, to be salted with fire, that it cannot be corrupted or consumed.

Is this true?

[JasonPratt]

I’m pretty sure the reference to the rabbi is from the Talmud, but in any case, yes all three ideas about retribution (ECT, anni, Kath) were around in Judaism in the 1st century, so it isn’t surprising that the fire is described that way.

As to Lightfoot’s reply to 9:49-50, I notice that so far as you quoted him, he says nothing about salt being ideal (or the best of things), and that having salt in our heart leads us to being at peace with one another. But Jesus says those things when talking about everyone being salted with the unquenchable fire of Gehenna (which Lightfoot does acknowledge is the fire being referenced).

Jesus not only says nothing about too much salt being bad, but references an apparently common saying: if salt becomes unsalty, with what will you season it? (In a related saying elsewhere He adds that unsalty salt is regarded as worthless and thrown out to be trampled underfoot by men.)

So, just as might be expected from the idea that salting is the best of things, Jesus doesn’t talk about having too much salt, but about not having enough.

I’m not going to dispute if Lightfoot found some rabbis talking about something being “fired” as a way of describing being ruined by too much salt (although I’m curious about the contexts if so); but if Jesus was referring to that idea at all, He was refuting it (and by means of another one of His classic unexpected reversal methods common to the Synoptic reports).

This applies just as much to the disputed addition to 9:49, by the way, where every sacrifice is sacrificed with salt: the sacrifice is washed (in a basin which typologically resembles a sea/bath of fire), salted, and then cooked, as a three-fold way of offering it cleanly to God’s acceptance (and eating by His servants). I can’t tell from your quote if Lightfoot mentions this very common textual variation, but just in case I thought I ought to anticipate a potential objection (since sometimes people will cite that textual variation as if its possibility of being original somehow automatically changes the meaning to a hopeless punishment situation).

[Dondi]

As far as the Talmudic quote is concerned, it is probably referencing Isaiah 66:24, in conection to the new heavens and new earth.

And they have gone forth, And looked on the carcases of the men Who are transgressing against me, For their worm dieth not, And their fire is not quenched, And they have been an abhorrence to all flesh!

[emphasis mine]

Interesting that the Young’s Literal Tranlation has “who are transgressing against me” in the present tense. Most other translations render it in the past tense. (Maybe someone here more versed in the Greek could help me out here).

But if the present tense is an acceptable rendering, then it brings to light a corollary that perhaps is the men affected would cease from transgressing, then maybe the fire and worms would cease.