How is the second part of Mark 9 to be discussed? Is it a collection of loosely connected proverbs and discussion fragments? Many modern commentators answer that question in the affirmative: only because of some keywords, they claim, is everything joined together under the theme of “congregational questions.”¹ What continues to be disputed is then whether Mark himself made the composition of the fragments or whether he found it already in his sources.² In any case, many exegetes divide this section into a series of smaller and independent parts (33-37, 38-41, 42-48, 49-50³). Some of these parts are in turn treated as a mini-collection of originally smaller statements (33-35 + 36-37⁴ ; 38-39 + 40 + 41⁵ ; 49a + 50a + 50b⁶). Even when Schmithals⁷ tries to emphasize the editorial unity of 33-50, he cannot evade treating the pericope as a collection of pottery fragments that are inadequately glued together again.

Against this approach to the passage we point out that Mark presents this section as a unity of instruction by Jesus. There are different reasons to begin this instruction (the conflict between the disciples) and to continue it (John’s question) but Mark indicates that thereby Jesus continued to deal with one theme. He was also the one who had begun the instruction by asking the disciples what they had talked about on the way. He knew that already and his question must be seen as introduction to what he was going to teach. The unity of this instruction appears on at least three points:

1. There is one place of action: the house in Capernaum (9:33), where Jesus had sat down to teach (9:35) and where he remains seated also during the further discussion (cf. 10:1).
2. At the end of his instruction Jesus returns to the reason for it. It began in connection with an argument on the way (9:34) and it ends with the concluding words: “Be at peace with one another” (9:50).
3. There is a thematic unity in this section. Jesus continuously bends the question as to who is the greatest in the direction of the question as to who serves the best. The egocentricity of the disciples is corrected with a Christocentric approach.

This unity in the instruction does not mean that there are no shifts. That is in part the result of interruption by third parties and of a deepening of what is being said by Jesus himself. In addition, however, there is also the fact that Mark summarizes a long discussion in a number of notes about its contents. We may expect from the reader that, considering the main line provided, he determine for himself how in this instruction there is a movement from one point to another. In the exegesis that now follows we assume the connection between the parts of this passage and we emphasize primarily the paraphrasing indication of that connection. Issues that are then in danger of being left out of the discussion are later treated separately (indented text).

(9:33) The immediate cause of the instruction is Jesus’ question, “What were you discussing on the way?” Meanwhile they have arrived in Capernaum. The question is asked “at home” (in Simon’s home? Cf. 1:29, 35-36; 2:1). It is the last time they are in this town before Good Friday (Matt. 19:1): a farewell talk in their own (temporary) home. Capernaum is now no place of rest. They are on the way to the suffering in Jerusalem (9:30-31). Therefore, it is of importance for the rest of the voyage to know what they were arguing about on the way. The door cannot be closed after this voyage (and its tensions), because via Capernaum the voyage will continue to the goal that has been announced but has not been understood. Because this journey to suffering is central for Jesus, peace on the way is also essential for his disciples. Therefore, the Master must speak to his disciples about their arguing on the way.

(9:34) The disciples’ silence that follows this question speaks for itself. They do not dare tell the Master that on the way they had been quarrelling about who among them was the greatest. They don’t hide their quarrel with evasions. They become silent, and that says something. With this “silence” we must remember that the disciples had noticed often enough that they could not hide anything from Jesus. He fathoms the hearts and sees through the people. His question already tells them that he knows everything about it. Their silence is therefore not a stubborn reaction but an embarrassed one. One look or question of Jesus is enough to make clear to them how their discussions had ignored the reality of the Master.

Luke (9:47) says plainly that Jesus knew “the reasoning of their hearts.” In Matthew (18:1) the situation seems somewhat different. There the disciples come themselves with a question: “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” In view of the presence of many disciples and the continuous contact it is not impossible that both incidents took place around the same time. A possible reconstruction could be that the disciples (who on the way have argued about the question who among them was the greatest) now at home ask Jesus the general question who is the greatest in the kingdom. They will then have a secret hope that the answer to that general question will make clear who was right in the special discussion on the way. The pretence fails, however, when from his side Jesus asks another question: “What were you discussing on the way?” The disciples don’t succeed in hiding, by means of a general question, their personal interest in a leading position. Each evangelist portrays this start of the discussion in his own manner (Matthew: by means of the pretence; Mark: by means of Jesus’ revealing question; Luke: with reference to Jesus’ penetrating knowledge).

(9:35) The fact that Jesus now “sat down” and called the twelve to him is, according to many, an indication of a seam in the story. There is no reason, however, not to think here of a normal sequence of incidents. On the way there were more people around Jesus than the twelve. At home also he is surrounded by a greater number of disciples. The house is large, it has rooms and an inner court (2:1): here Jesus has moved with his disciples, speaking and questioning. Then comes the question about the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and Jesus’ inquiry about the discussion on the way. Now the moment comes for the Master to correct his disciples, in view of the continuation of the voyage. He emphasizes the importance of what follows in that, rather than remaining among his followers, he looks for a seat (sign of instruction that follows) and to ask the twelve to sit down around him. He calls (phonein) the twelve: the verb this time does not suggest a calling together of a meeting (proskalein) but a calling together by name (cf. John 10:3; 12:17). This personal invitation to come forward has caused excitement. Who among the disciples is the greatest? When that question now arises, it is precisely Simon, Andrew, James, etc. (all twelve of them) who are to come forward. Are these twelve the greatest among the disciples?

The word that Jesus now speaks, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all,” must have sounded strange in this situation of fright and expectation. The twelve (and not only they) are willing to stand at the front and be the first in this circle. From this desire arose also the discussions on the way. Jesus, however, turns this around: there indeed is a place of honour with Jesus, but it consists of occupying the lowest place of service, where one has no one beneath himself but is the last one of all (emphatically repeated) because he serves and helps all.

Verse 35b indicates the way one can be the “greatest.” Swete⁸ rightly rejects the exegesis that considers verse 35b as a punishment for the person who want to be first (cf. “the first will be the last”). Swete refers to Matthew 23:8ff., Mark 10:42ff., Luke 22:24ff. One could also point to Luke 14:8-11, where it appears that “being the last” can be a punishment as well as a free choice. The second possibility is meant in Mark 9:35 because also the word “servant” is used, which cannot be seen as an indication of punishment.

(9:36) Calling the twelve together did not result in answering the question as to who is the greatest; what followed was only a statement about the way one can become the greatest. But Jesus does not end with this. In a way he also shows one who is “greatest.” Within the prominent circle of the twelve he now places a child (from Simon’s family?). He embraces it; the verb (enagkalizomai) can also mean “to take in his arms,” but here it probably means “to embrace” (because of the fact that Jesus was sitting down and placing the child “in the midst of them”). It is not Jesus’ intention to point to children as such as “the greatest.” They are in fact “the least”: they mean nothing yet, they don’t have yet any position or dignity. When Jesus now places an insignificant child in the centre this illustrates his words about “the last of all” and a “servant of all.”

(9:37) Matthew shows that Jesus, by placing this child in the middle of the circle, wanted to show the disciples how low and humble their place must be: like that of an insignificant child that does not yet count (Matt. 18:2-4; cf. Luke 18:17). Mark leaves this out. He only mentions the second way in which Jesus links a lesson to the child. Matthew has this in 18:5, after the first application. Mark turns immediately to this second one. Matthew has kept more to the instructive aspect of the discussion (“who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”). Mark places more emphasis on the antithetical element (“Do not argue among one another about the place of honour”). In the entire instruction these are two sides of the same coin. For Mark, Jesus’ second statement with respect to the child is the most important: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

The right understanding of his statement is hindered by the fact that we know the expressions “receive” and “in my name” from what Jesus said when he sent out the twelve apostles (Mark 6:11, Matt. 10:14, 40-41, Luke 9:5; 10:8-10). Involuntarily we then tend to hear an allusion here also to the reception of the disciples by the people of Israel. 9:37, however, does not speak of the reception of the disciples. They themselves were indeed thinking of that: how are we going to be received and who is then the greatest? Jesus, however, turns their attention to something else. Disciples are not called to look after the way they themselves are received; they are there to prepare for others the honour of a reception. Rather than the public being there for them, they are there for the public. As servants await their lord and as the more subordinate servants also await the little children, so the disciples, who want to be the greatest, also must be the servants of all and therefore willing to receive (and teach) in Jesus’ name even the insignificant children. As it is not beneath the Master’s dignity to embrace, before the eyes of the most important disciples, a small child, so it must not be beneath the disciples’ dignity to accept anyone in Jesus’ name. Great apostles will in times to come be allowed to open their arms for the reception of a worldwide church that is made up of not many noble people and not many rich. If they are willing to be the teachers and shepherds of such unimportant people and children, they will in fact welcome Christ. He comes to them with these elect and leads them by his Spirit into the arms of the apostles. And, as they already know, this means also receiving the Lord who has sent Jesus for the salvation of many sinners. In short: disciples are not chosen to stride ahead of the greatest, but to receive and carry, as servants, even the smallest. That is how one becomes great in the kingdom of heaven.

Compare 10:13-14 to see how difficult it was for the disciples to consider even children in the literal sense of the word sufficiently important to be received by Jesus.

(9:38) John has understood Jesus’ meaning: they must not look for their own honour but for that of Jesus. When we understand Jesus’ word, however, this does not yet mean that we have already been converted to it. This appears from John’s answer: he recognizes Jesus as the greatest, calling him “Teacher.” Yet he sees Jesus’ disciples also as “greatest.” Otherwise it is impossible to understand what he now says: “We saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” Significant is the fusion of “you” and “we”: how could such a man be helpful to Jesus if he does not respect the group of disciples? True, it is about Jesus’ name, but is not the circle of the twelve inseparably connected with that name? Behind John’s remark is still the question as to who among the disciples is the greatest.

(9:39) Jesus now forbids the disciples to prevent something like that again. “For no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me.” It looks as if the disciples and Jesus speak on two separate wavelengths. With the disciples this is the result of a lack of understanding (9:32); with Jesus it is the result of a continuous attempt at correcting the disciples and bringing them to conversion. They are thinking of a march of triumph: who will then lead the way? Jesus, however, speaks of a way of suffering: soon people will speak evil of him. This means that they will reject and curse him (see for kakologein as meaning “to curse” 7:10; Acts 19:9). Jesus’ statement does not in general mean that people who drive out demons in his name will not soon change their mind. The Saviour speaks clearly in connection with what is happening at the time: before long the people will speak evil of him (9:31), so they should be glad that there are still some in these weeks who will be friends in that hour. Disciples are worrying about their honour; Jesus sees a point of light on the way of dishonour. He who prepares himself for being totally left alone greets even a faraway friend. He who thinks that places of honour are being prepared stumbles even over a friend who stays a bit at a distance.

(9:40) It is better that the disciples fear the approaching enmity than that they get excited about a supporter. “For whoever is not against you is for you.” It sounds like an easy statement, but if read superficially it does not seem true. Has Jesus not also said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Matt. 12:30)? As a general rule it cannot be stated that all who are not opponents are supporters. Such a statement only makes sense when opposition to Jesus has become so general and self-evident that any exception to the general condemnation of him suggests as such already a favourable judgment about him. Verse 40 must be understood with reference to the times, and is coloured. Jesus says it at this time, when they are en route to his rejection by the people. Whoever is now not against Jesus (“Crucify him,” everyone will later call) is certainly for him. Disciples say of a Christian who casts out demons but does not follow them: this is not good! Jesus says, It is more than we might expect at this time!

In a number of manuscripts, verse 40 states, “For whoever is not against us [instead of you] is for us [instead of you].” The suggestion that the choice of the word you would be the result of a harmonization with Luke 9:50 is incorrect: the majority of the manuscripts in fact speak there of us! Choosing you does not imply a great difference with the other choice (us). Those to whom Jesus speaks (you) are the ones who follow him: what matters is their being together with him. Essentially there is therefore little difference.

In Matthew 12:30 Jesus speaks against critical Pharisees who explain him with reference to Beelzebul. He then points to the need of a conscious choice for Jesus. One may not evade this: whoever does not choose for Jesus chooses against God. In Mark 9:40 the situation is different: at issue now are internal relationships, in connection with the approaching suffering. This verse therefore is not in conflict with Matthew 12:30.

(9:41) After Jesus has dealt with the error in John’s question, he gives a direct answer to the question about the work of someone who is not a properly organized believer. Jesus did not intend to say that it does not matter whether people respect or disdain his disciples and apostles. He only wants to make clear that the respect that his disciples deserve does not have to imply that people travel with them and show them great honour. “For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.” A cup of water is far less than “following us.” Most important, however, is not what people give to the apostles, but why they give it. It does not have to be a sacrifice for all time (“following”). Such a sacrifice Jesus has asked for only in special cases (10:21). If only people recognize Jesus’ servants as his delegates, even if it is only by means of a cup of water to quench their thirst. Obviously the man who cast out demons in Jesus’ name did not show disrespect for the disciples. He even listened to them when they ordered him to stop casting out demons so long as he did not belong to the real followers. This recognition of his delegates, Jesus will reward. How? By giving the man perseverance of faith! Verse 41 is causal with respect to verse 40 (“for”). The reward will be that such a man will be kept from joining the crowd in cursing Jesus. He does not follow with the disciples, but Jesus knows him and will be able, also over a greater distance, to keep this man for God who sent him.

(9:42) What matters is not the honour of the disciples, but the salvation of many simple people, insignificant in themselves like a little child. Jesus only asks for faith: acknowledgement of him and his delegates. He is so honoured by the salvation of such simple people that he now warns every disciple not to hinder them. Verse 42 is more or less the negative side of verse 37. There Jesus said that every disciple who receives such insignificant children is a blessed disciple who will receive his reward. And why would then a believer who does not follow them be considered beneath them (38-41)? Now we come to the other side: they should not dare cause these little ones to stumble, even if it were only one! Let it be the honour of the disciples to avoid and prevent the neglect of even one little person. Then they are truly “the servant of all” and therefore “the greatest.”

With “these little ones who believe in me” Jesus refers to those who through the preaching (by Jesus himself and by the twelve) have come to believe in him and who now put their trust in Jesus (pisteuontoon; not: pisteusantoon). Among them is, for example, the man who so strongly trusts in Jesus’ name that thereby he also casts out demons. And the simple one who had nothing more to offer the apostles (when they were travelling two by two) than a drink of cold water. This part of Israel that had come to faith but did not follow the disciples and the Master, was small and insignificant in the eyes of the disciples. They were not thinking of them when on the way they were arguing about who was the greatest. But Jesus has now focused their attention on the sheep and the lambs of the flock. They may not allow them to stumble (skandalizein): the verb used refers to the opposite of feeding. Sheep are fed, but other animals are caught in the trap. That is the end of them: they are killed. Metaphorically this means, “Do not act in such a way that you become the cause of one of these little ones being caught in a trap and getting lost to the faith.” The punishment for this is more serious than death by drowning. It would be better if a great millstone (a very large and heavy stone moved by a donkey) were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. The weight and the depth make death then inevitable. Worse than this is God’s punishment for ensnaring one of the little ones who believe.

(9:43-48) That Jesus in verse 42 thought of his disciples appears from what follows. Herein he shows the way to escape the horrible punishment mentioned indirectly in verse 42. Thereby he speaks now in the second person (“If your hand…”). The deep seriousness of Jesus’ words appears from the fact that he points three times to the same way with almost the same words (43-44, 45-46, 47-48). Verse 42 spoke of the ensnaring of the simple. The most serious victim in that case would be the culprit him- or herself. Those who neglect little ones so that they stumble will stumble over that neglect themselves. To prevent one’s own fall means that one has to take good care of others. And to reach that goal one has to keep oneself under control.

When asking what snare there can be in hand-foot-eye, we have to keep in mind the situation wherein the teaching takes place (a desire for honour in a time of suffering) and the nature of the threat (falling into sin by neglecting others). We think then of sins of hand-foot-eye that cause others to stumble (and thereby also the apostle himself). The discussion was about the sin of ambition and pride. The hand wants to rule; the foot wants to be ahead of others; the eye is envious! Hand, foot, and eye pressed on in the discussion on the way. It seemed that they brought the disciples to the first place but in fact they threaten them with stumbling and falling because their hands, feet, and eyes now hastened to rule over others: they approach the one who casts out devils, lay their hand on him, and forbid with an envious eye his practice. Here the beginning of a desire for honour leads directly to a lust for power, and this lust for power “prevents, forbids,” whereas Jesus is about “helping, receiving.”

The remedy is radical: cut off such limbs. That is better than experiencing the covenant wrath of the Lord, about which Isaiah already warningly prophesied when he spoke of a worm that will not die and a fire that will never be quenched (Isa. 66:24). The cutting off of limbs belonged to the old criminal law. The images are less extraordinary in Jesus’ time than in our century. What is extraordinary, however, is that Jesus speaks of a punishment that in normal jurisdiction is necessarily imposed by others, while now it must be applied voluntarily and by the person him- or herself. In short, “Be unconditionally strict for yourself and for every part of your body and spirit!” It is the other side of the command to love God and the neighbour with all one’s heart and all one’s soul, with one’s entire spirit and one’s entire body. Whereas the disciples want to be ahead of the others as the “greatest,” Jesus points out that it will be hard enough for them to arrive without injury in the kingdom of heaven. Their dream is changed into the sober reality of suffering and service, of war against one’s own proud heart: without that struggle no apostle will be able to be “servant of all.”

Gehenna is an Old Testament word for the place where God executes eternal judgment. This word, as well as the quotation from Isaiah 66:24, shows that Jesus speaks to children of God as members of the covenant, and warns them (believing disciples) against the punishment of this covenant.

Wohlenberg⁹ considers verses 43, 45-47 as an irrealis (in reality it is not hand, foot, and eye that hinder you, but it depends on you). Haenchen¹⁰ strongly objects to this exegesis. He thinks that the quotation here in Mark 9 is from the most “unchristian” part of the Old Testament. It is not clear, however, why it should not be truly “Christian” when with the most severe punishments Jesus takes the side of the little ones(!) who believe in him and therewith threatens all the leaders who let the flock perish while they are quarrelling about their honour or the honour of their own theology.

(9:49-50) The last part of Jesus’ teaching is difficult to understand. It begins with a brief causal sentence: “For everyone will be salted with fire.” According to some this refers to the purifying fire of the trial whereby the disciples still have to be hardened.¹¹ With others it can be argued that “fire,” so shortly after the repeated mention of “fire” in verses 44, 46, 48, must refer to the destroying fire of punishment intended there for all who caused little ones to stumble and fall. “Everyone” here is then referring to “everyone who ends up in Gehenna”: there the fire does not end, for everyone is (then) “salted” with fire. The mentioning of “salt” is the new element, but why is it mentioned here? Meyer¹² thinks of the salt on the sacrifices: covenantal salt, but then in this case covenantal wrath. Gould¹³ rightly points out that in the whole of verse 50, Meyer gives two meanings to “salt” (“covenantal wrath” and “covenantal wisdom”). He himself thinks of the purifying work (if one is not purified/salted by cutting off his own limbs then this is done by the Gehenna-fire). This explanation fails to do justice, however, to the everlasting character of Gehenna (“The fire is not quenched”). This suggests that “being salted” must be of a negative character, and endlessly so. One could think of Sodom and Gomorrah. By the fire of God’s judgment Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt and the regions of Sodom and Gomorrah have become a lasting Salt Sea. Nothing is more final than the infertility of this area, and this is the result of God’s judgment of fire. Verse 50a then means, “Thus one is forever eliminated, for fire will change everyone into infertile salt, as happened with Sodom, Gomorrah, and Lot’s wife.” (For an explicit reminder of Lot’s wife, see Luke 17:29-32.)

In many manuscripts verse 49b now follows: “And each sacrifice will be salted with fire.” It is easy to understand that this sentence disappeared in some manuscripts because it ends in the same way as 49a. It is less easy to understand that it is still absent in modern versions and translations.¹⁴ Exegetically it certainly does not become easier if we want to enclose this sentence in 49b. There is now a change of subject. Verse 49a speaks about “everyone” who comes into Gehenna, verse 49b about a “sacrifice” (that rises up to God). The fire in Gehenna is not a fire of sacrifice but of judgment. Verse 49b therefore speaks no longer about fire, but about the fact that everything destined for God in heaven (and therefore not for Gehenna) must be salted with salt. Those who are punished in Gehenna become by means of fire (unfruitful) salt. Everything that is to arrive in the kingdom of heaven as sacrifice must beforehand be salted with salt. The salt is then not a residual value, but in fact an added value. The sacrifice describes all those who with Jesus want to enter heaven, the disciples at the front. The salt indicates what is needed to begin with: the dedication to God and the neighbour, the struggle against one’s own ambitious feet, hands, and eyes, and the love for the lowly ones who come to faith in Jesus’ name. If this sacrificial salt is not added to life, one will be salted by the fire of judgment. When, on the other hand, one makes one’s life savoury to God, one will be allowed to come to him. Disciples must not argue about their value but must strive to ensure that their life is savoury for Christ and for God.

In verse 50 this is further emphasized. “Salt is good” (the surrender to God and to the instruction of Christ). “But if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again?” (what can still save a human being, even though he is called disciple of Christ, if in his life one does not notice the taste of God’s love and of self-denial?). “Have salt in yourselves” (take care that it must not be caused by the fire of judgment, and strive to maintain the taste that I wanted to give to your life now that I am going to offer it as a sacrifice to God). “And be at peace with one another” (instead of the conflict on the way you should display unity in a common service that tastes of me because you embrace the little ones). At the end of verse 50 we are back again at the reason for this instruction: discussion and conflict when they were on the way with Jesus to his suffering. By his teaching Jesus has penetratingly spoken about what threatens the disciples and about what should control them. He has had patience with their weaknesses and has not allowed them to stumble as a result of their ambition. Therefore, he does himself, as an example, what he asks of them. Disciples must not aspire to places of honour but prepare themselves for the place of sacrifice. In Jesus’ name, and as servant of all.

The translation by¹⁵ (“Have = share salt among each other”) suggests that salt is a symbol of friendship at a meal. This translation does fit the call to have peace among each other but has no connection with the preceding verses (49 and 50a). Moreover, there are objections to this translation (1. echete is not “share”; 2. in 50b en heautois refers to everyone personally and en allelois to the relations among each other).