Strange but Rich Verses: What Does Acts 1:4 Mean by Saying That Jesus Was “Eating Salt with Them”?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 04-14-15 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[ealgeone]

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 Luke’s 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.

If this is the case they were only breaking bread together...no transubstantiation.

[Springfield Reformer]

Well yes, one would hope a Monsignor could come up with a less strained argument from the Greek, but this is in the category of a rookie error, the sort of thing you'd expect to see from maybe a first semester Greek student, and a poor one at that.  It's known as the etymological fallacy. The raw fact that the root word συναλίζομαι (suvalitzomai) may have a connection with salt (and as others here have explained there are other legitimate possibilities) does not demonstrate that salt has any real connection with the semantic range of the word.  

Don't believe me?  Consider this example. If I say I'm paying you a salary, would it be legitimate for some distant future reader of these posts to suggest I paid you in literal salt?  If all you consider is the etymology, then yes, absolutely, because that is the etymology of "salary." "Salary" is derived from the Latin "salarium," which means salt-money.  At one point in the distant past, Roman soldiers were literally paid in salt.  But no sane English-speaking thinks it means that now.  That's because semantically it switched identification from the thing being paid to the fact of being paid.

This is why when you look at these terms in Greek, you absolutely cannot stop with etymology.  It is a rookie error.  You have to look at broader semantic usage.  This term in Acts 1:4 goes back a long ways, to the classical period.  It has had plenty of time to shift from being about literal salt (if it ever was about salt) to being about being together socially, which may pertain to eating, or may not.  But nothing so involved may be derived from it as a specific meal, or even that there was a meal.  We do know Jesus ate with the disciples after His resurrection, but the only such meal on record that I can recall involved eating fish, when Jesus was rehabilitating Peter from his dreadful failure.

But what this does demonstrate is what is sometimes called the "mystical hermeneutic" of the Roman denomination, which is eisogesis on steroids. Eisogesis is just a fancy word for reading things into the text without sufficient linguistic justification. It jumps from mere eisogesis to "mystical" because any gap in the linguistics can be papered over by sheer belief the interpretation is true, even when evidence of such truth is lacking.  The "insight" is achieved "mystically."  Hence the "mystical" hermeneutic.  Such a hermeneutic makes rational debate over the meaning of a text nearly impossible.

But Catholics are not the only folks to use such an approach.  It has much in common, for example, with the Bible Codes theory, which in turn is a variation on the explicitly mystical approach of Cabala. I have even seen such things done in evangelical circles, usually in passages about the end times.  So no one is immune to the temptation.  But it is an extremely undisciplined approach to interpretation of Scripture, and prone to lead one into all manner of error.  Very common among the cults as well.  Not recommended, and problematic for one titled a Monsignor to foist such tripe on those ill-equipped to defend themselves against it. Irresponsible.

And Salvation, I hope you understand that none of this is directed at you personally.  I think very well of you, as I am sure the rest of us do.  My beef is with those would be your shepherds, but do not seem to understand the most basic tools of their claimed profession. That is what upsets me. Not you. :)

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

You decide. (I vote for salt. )

I've decided...

Let TRANSLATORS do their work; and I will read and understand it.

[Elsie]

The original Greek text has no reference to salt whatsoever. Where in the world does this guy come from?

Well; ya see; it's like this...

...there was this strange phenomenon around the Sun on day, and...

[Elsie]

It explains that συναλιζόμενος supposedly is derived from "halos," salt.

I'll see your halo and raise you two!

[Elsie]

Do not broad brush every Protestant posting here as liars.

He should know that only ALL Protestants can be called liars; not just us Freepers...

[Elsie]

So you will also now be removing all posts that claim Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, right?

Only the ones that say FREEPER Catholics do...

---

 

 

 

Bernadine: …all gifts, all virtues, and all graces are dispensed by the hands of Mary to whomsoever, when, and as she pleases. O Lady, since thou art the dispenser of all graces, and since the grace of salvation can ONLY come through thy hands, OUR SALVATION DEPENDS ON THEE.

Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.

Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.

Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.

Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.

Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.

Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.

Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.

Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.

Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.

[Elsie]

Your back and forth with the mod is a prime example of a private convo I’ve had with several other FReepers. It is affecting donations.

In what way?

More Prots giving to the cause?

Or more Catholics having a snit and reducing the intake?

[goodwithagun]

One only needs to look at how long it takes now to raise the needed funds.

[vladimir998]

“Only the ones that say FREEPER Catholics do...”

And I never mentioned a Freeper. Thanks for proving my point.

[Mad Dawg]

It might help to think about the meaning of the word “same.”

[Mad Dawg]

What is wrong with dangus’s point about the meaning of “same” here?

[Mad Dawg]

He explicitly disqualifies himself as a Greek scholar. This is offered as almost a jeu d’esprit. I read it as if he had said, “Here’s a notion to play with.”

[Springfield Reformer]

He explicitly disqualifies himself as a Greek scholar. This is offered as almost a jeu d’esprit. I read it as if he had said, “Here’s a notion to play with.”

Yes I saw that:

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 let’s just chalk it up to a difference among experts

And he is right in certain respects.  If you do not take seriously the impact you will have as a purported spiritual leader, your "playful Greek notions" can be more destructive than constructive.  Dangerous, just like he said. It's rather like saying, "I'm not a munitions expert, but let's play with this unexploded WWII bomb we just found in out backyard. It's got some kind of funny yellow triangle thingy on it, and some munitions experts say it means one thing, while others think it means something else.  But that's just the meaningless buzz of experts.  We can still play with this. Where is my hammer ... "

And it's a free country.  If he wants to play with things he admittedly doesn't understand, that's his right to do. But when we have well meaning Catholics and others here looking to his title as a measure of trust, and appealing to him as an authority, that invites criticism.  He is in a position to do spiritual harm, and he should be called on it.  I am a mere anonymous poster in a public debate forum, and yet even little old me worries seriously and hard about getting things right so as not to inadvertently do harm to anyone who might read my posts.  It's like James says:

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.
(James 3:1-2) (New King James Version)

Anyone who thinks he has charge of even one of Christ's sheep had better take his duties seriously or get another line of work.  There are safer ways to make a living.

Peace,

SR

[RnMomof7]

It might help to really think of this

A. The Mass is the same because the offering and the priest are the same--Christ Our Blessed Lord: and the ends for which the sacrifice of the Mass is offered are the same as those of the sacrifice of the Cross.

267. Q. What are the ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?

A. The ends for which the sacrifice of the Cross was offered were: first, to honor and glorify God; second, to thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world; third, to satisfy God's justice for the sins of men; fourth, to obtain all graces and blessings.

The SAME ..this says the mass is offered to satisfy for the sins of man...JUST LIKE THE BLOODY CROSS

Don't play depends on what the meaning of is is

Heb 10:26For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin

Same

1.identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned: This street is the same one we were on yesterday.

2. being one or identical though having different names, aspects, etc.: These are the same rules though differently worded.

3. agreeing in kind, amount, etc.; corresponding: two boxes of the same dimensions.

4. unchanged in character, condition, etc.: It's the same town after all these years.

[Mad Dawg]

So, if it's utterly the same, as we claim, then it can't be a repetition.

[dangus]

You seem to confuse “the same” with “the same kind of.” If my wife and I drive the same kind of car, there are two cars. If we drive the same car, there is one car. Going back to the sacrifice of the mass: If there were two, how could the priest be the same? Is the parish priest at mass the same Christ? That’s absurd; he’s the alter Cristi (in the place of Christ). No, the priest which is the same Christ is Christ.

[Mad Dawg]

So, if it's utterly the same, as we claim, then it can't be a repetition.

A repetition would differ in space/time. So it would not be identical, it would be "one just like it," but not "that very one."

We think God is Lord of Time. He inhabits eternity, sicut dixit Esaias. He is not older today than yesterday.

I think it is an abuse of discourse to suggest that I am playing with "depends on what the meaning of is is." This is a fundamental disagreement which goes to the meaning of the Incarnation, to Trinitarian thought, to the basic idea of God. your side seems to think that Chronos is more powerful than God, that God changes -- a thing not allowed by Scripture.

Yes there is a problem with the Scriptures saying God is constant and also saying he "repents of the evil." The unrenewed mind, as I see it, will subordinate God to time. But it makes more sense to subordinate time to God, and to consider his self-disclosure to us (but not himself) as subject to time and to temporal language because we are creatures who change -- and so are, by definition temporal, since time is the measure of change.

Isaiah 57:15 is a wonderful text in many ways. One of them is its assertion that God dwells both within and outside his creation. We see from Genesis 1:2 that the Second Person of the Trinity bridges the gap between eternity and time; though Him changes are made, though He himself is eternally begotten of the Father.

(And so it kind of "fits" that He would unite two natures in one person -- with blending them, so that he is truly God and truly man.

So, with respect to his humanity, Calvary happened in history, "then," at a particular time. But with respect to his Divinity, he never changes.

So we can look at the Ascension as his taken up his temporal humanity, all of it, all that is proper to humanity, into God. And in light of that we can come to see, with renewed minds, that the sacrifice is both temporal and eternal.

When we start to think of God's omnipresence, we usually think that God is everywhere (and "everywhen.") But that means, since he dwells with the lowly and contrite, that he is here. So we see that all places are "here" to Him, and all times "now." So the image of his still dying, as metmom says, is inadequate. All of it, Nativity, Death, Resurrection, is now to Him.

He does not change.

[Mad Dawg]

Darn! I meant to type that the natures are united withOUT blending!

Campion and dangus. Check my thinking, please?

[Elsie]

Your back and forth with the mod is a prime example of a private convo I’ve had with several other FReepers. It is affecting donations.

Fundreading: intentions much better surmised than mere Mind-reading.