Posted on 04/15/2015 7:02:30 AM PDT by Salvation
There is an unusual verse that occurs in the first chapter of the Acts the Apostles, describing a gathering of Jesus and the Apostles after the resurrection but before the ascension. For the most part, modern translations do not reveal the full oddity of the verse. The verse in question, as rendered by the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, is,
And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4).
However, a number of scripture scholars, including none other than Joseph Ratzinger, point out that the verse is more literally translated as follows:
And while eating salt with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father.
We will discuss in a moment the significance of eating salt (basically a reference to the New Covenant), but first there do seem to be some differences about how to understand the Greek.
The most common Greek lexicon, Strongs, makes no mention of the connection of the word συναλιζόμενος (synalizomenos) to salt. It parses the word as syn (with) + halizo (to throng or accumulate), therefore to assemble together.
However another Greek dictionary, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Pontifical Biblical Institute), includes a different analysis of the word: syn (with) + halas (salt), therefore to take salt together, or by extension, to share a meal.
So there seem to be two rather different notions of the root words or etymology involved. It is also interesting that none of the writings of the Greek fathers that I was able to consult make any mention of the possible connection to salt, though St. John Chrysostom does connect the word to a meal rather than a mere gathering.
I know just enough Greek to be dangerous; I certainly cannot sort out why some Greek sources make no mention of salt and seem to parse the word differently. But for our purposes lets just chalk it up to a difference among experts, much as is the case with another passage on which I have written here: Agapas vs. Phileo.
I would like to explore the view that the verse says that the Lord was eating salt with them. How odd to our modern ears, especially in times when the food police treat salt almost as a poison! But salt remains very precious today, even if less necessary than it was in the ancient world.
Lets consider what Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote (as Joseph Ratzinger):
For a correct understanding the word used by Lukesynalizómenosis of great significance. Literally translated, it means eating salt with them. Luke must have chosen the word quite deliberately. Yet what is it supposed to mean? In the Old Testament the enjoyment of bread and salt, or of salt alone, served to establish lasting covenants (cf Num 18:19; 2 Chrin 13:5). Salt is regarded as a guarantee of durability. It is a remedy against putrefaction, against the corruption that pertains to the nature of death. To eat is always to hold death at bayit is a way of preserving life. The eating of salt by Jesus after the Resurrection, which we therefore encounter as a sign of new and everlasting life, points to the Lords new banquet with his followers it has an inner association with the Last Supper, when the Lord established the New Covenant. So the mysterious cipher of eating salt expresses an inner bond between the [Last Supper] and the risen Lords new table fellowship; he gives himself to his followers as food and thus makes them sharers in his life, in life itself the Lord is drawing the disciples into a New Covenant-fellowship with him he is giving them a share in the real life, making them truly alive and slating their lives through participation in his Passion, the purifying power of his suffering (Jesus of Nazareth Vol. 2, pp. 271-272).
So indeed salt and covenants are tied. Here are a few verses that make the connection:
Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the Lord I give to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord for both you and your offspring (Numbers 18:19).
Dont you know that the Lord, the God of Israel, has given the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt? (2 Chronicles 13:5)
Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings (Leviticus 2:13).
It makes sense that Luke would refer to Jesus as eating salt with the disciples. To untrained ears it may seem odd, but to ears tuned to the biblical world the reference has great significance. Jesus is affirming the New Covenant and this expression points to that.
Of course it is no mere table fellowship; it is the meal of the New Covenant we have come to call the Mass. Hence without doing disservice to Lukes description we can say (in our more developed theological language) that during the forty days before He ascended, the Lord celebrated Mass with them. And thus the Emmaus description (Luke 24:30) of Him at the table giving thanks, blessing, breaking, and giving them the bread so that they recognize him therein is not the only allusion to a post-resurrection Mass.
Eating salt with them or staying with them? You decide. (I vote for salt. )
Monsignor Pope Ping!
It means assembled together with them. Hey, I’ve got a question: did God guide the committee, or whatever, when they selected the current Vicar of Christ?
I’m taking this exegesis with a major grain of salt.
It may be an idiom of the times.
When we say, “There’s a bug, step on it”. It is taken literally.
But when we say “Hey, we’re late. Step on it”
It is idiomatic of applying more pressure to the gas pedal.
The ancients would raise the same questions regarding the meaning of the 2nd example.
A papal conclave is a meeting of the College of Cardinals convened to elect a new Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope. The pope is considered by Roman Catholics to be the apostolic successor of Saint Peter and earthly head of the Roman Catholic Church.[1] The conclave has been the procedure for choosing the pope for more than half of the time the church has been in existence, and is the oldest ongoing method for choosing the leader of an institution.
from Wikipedia
The family and I went to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC this past Sunday for a special Divine Mercy mass. The celebrant was Monsignor Pope. What a great preacher. He brought along the choir from his African-American congregation and they were amazing too. Glad made the trip up there and also to enjoy the Cherry Blossoms.
The original Greek text has no reference to salt whatsoever. Where in the world does this guy come from?
Here’s what we know for sure:
1) Nothing happens that God does not permit to happen. But that doesn’t mean he’s any more pleased with it than he is when his children commit genocide against each other.
2) The Vicar of the Son of Man (to call him the Vicar of the Son of God would invite blasphemy) cannot issue heresy from the throne of St. Peter while acting of his own free will.
3) Catholics are bound under the penalty of guilt of sin to obey the Pope when he acts within his temporal (earthly) authority — just as Americans are bound to obey the laws of the states when they are consistent with the Constitution — regardless whether his instructions are prudent or wise. Thus, when the Latin Mass had been suppressed, Latin-Mass groups were compelled to argue not only that the Latin Mass itself was good, but that the suppression of the Latin Mass was not a valid expression of the Pope’s authority.
Interesting.
If we understand the concept of leavening to be the insidiousness of sin, affecting all it contacts, then the basic baker’s-understanding that salt “kills” leavening is quite obvious here.
The real question is, why it would be put forth in a simple statement found in Acts 1:4 as opposed to a larger exposition of sin and redemption by Luke?
The impact of understatement, maybe?
Study
I don’t have time to look it up now myself but is this word used anywhere else in scripture and, if so, what is the context? I find it strange the article didn’t answer this question.
Acts of the Apostles | |||
English: Douay-Rheims | Latin: Vulgata Clementina | Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) | |
Acts of the Apostles 1 |
|||
4. | And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (saith he) by my mouth. | Et convescens, præcepit eis ab Jerosolymis ne discederent, sed exspectarent promissionem Patris, quam audistis (inquit) per os meum : | και συναλιζομενος παρηγγειλεν αυτοις απο ιεροσολυμων μη χωριζεσθαι αλλα περιμενειν την επαγγελιαν του πατρος ην ηκουσατε μου |
Liddell-Scott allows for both "eating salt with" and "eating at the same table with":
συνα^λίζω (B), in Pass.,A.eat salt with, eat at the same table with, Act. Ap.1.4, Man.5.339; συναλίζεται = convescitur, Gloss. (Cf. ἅλς, σύναλος; συναυλιζόμενος is v.l. in Act.Ap. l.c.)
Links will work at source.
I don't see "by my mouth" though in the original.
“The original Greek text has no reference to salt whatsoever. Where in the world does this guy come from?”
From the Greek text. The passage below is from Robertson’s Word Pictures from the New Testament:
Being assembled together with them (sunalizomeno). Present passive participle from sunalizw, an old verb in Herodotus, Xenophon, etc., from sun, with, and alizw, from alh, crowded. The margin of both the Authorized and the Revised Versions has “eating with them” as if from sun and al (salt). Salt was the mark of hospitality. There is the verb alisqhte en autwi used by Ignatius Ad Magnes. X, “Be ye salted in him.” But it is more than doubtful if that is the idea here though the Vulgate does have convescens illis “eating with them,” as if that was the common habit of Jesus during the forty days (Wendt, Feine, etc.). Jesus did on occasion eat with the disciples ( Luke 24:41-43 ; Mark 16:14 ). To wait for the promise of the Father (perimenein thn epaggelian tou patro). Note present active infinitive, to keep on waiting for (around, peri). In the Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee this item was not given ( Matthew 28:16-20 ). It is the subjective genitive, the promise given by the Father (note this Johannine use of the word), that is the Holy Spirit (”the promise of the Holy Spirit,” objective genitive). Which ye heard from me (hn hkousate mou). Change from indirect discourse (command), infinitives cwrizesqai and perimenein after parhggeilen to direct discourse without any eph (said he) as the English (Italics). Luke often does this (oratior ariata). Note also the ablative case of mou (from me). Luke continues in verse Matthew 5 with the direct discourse giving the words of Jesus.
The Greek word συναλιζόμενος (synalizomenos) means "I am assembled together with". It comes from halizo (to throng); to accumulate, i.e. Convene -- assemble together. It is NOT derived from "halos" nor does it have any association with it. In fact, the word "salt" is "halas and hala" and NOT "halos". The Greek word "halos" isn't even found in scripture.
Like I said. Where does this guy come from? He obviously doesn't know scripture.
I thought that might be the case. This is a good reason to be hesitant to ascribe any broad allegorical meaning to the word.
See post 17.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.