Replies

Appendix No. 159, Companion Bible

159. “THIS IS MY BODY” (Matt. 26:26).

A figure of speech consists of a word of words used out of the ordinary sense, or order; just as we call a person dressed out of the ordinary manner or fashion a “figure”: both attract our attention; and, in the case of words, the one and only object is in order to call a reader’s attention to what is thus emphasized. For examples see the notes on Matt. 16:6; where, had the Lord said “the doctrine of the Pharisees is like leaven”, that would have been the Fig. Simile (Ap. 6). Had He said “the doctrine of the Pharisees is leaven”, the Fig. in this case would have been Metaphor (Ap. 6); by which, instead of saying one thing is like another, it is carried over (as the word Metaphor means), and states that the one thing is the other.

But in Matt. 16:6, the Lord used another Figure altogether, viz. Hypocatastasis (from hupo = under (Ap. 104. xviii), kata = down (Ap. 104. x), and stasis = a stationing), which means putting one of the two words (which are necessary in the case of Simile and Metaphor) down underneath, i.e. out of sight, and thus implying it. He said, “beware of the leaven”, thus implying the word “doctrine”, which He really meant; and, by thus attracting the disciples’ attention to His words, thereby emphasized them.

In these three Figures we have a Positive, Comparative, and Superlative emphasis. The essence of Simile is resemblance; the essence of Metaphor is representation (as in the case of a portrait, which is representation of some person); the essence of Hypocatastasis is implication, where only one word is mentioned and another is implied. Through non-acquaintance with Figures of Speech every Figure is to-day called a “Metaphor”. But this is not the case. A Metaphor is a special Figure different and distinct from all others.

“This is My body” is the Figure Metaphor; and the Figure lies in the Verb “IS”, which, as in this case always means “represents”, and must always be so expressed. It can never mean “is changed into”. Hence in the Figure Metaphor, the Verb “represents” can always be substituted for “is”. For example:

“The field is (or represents) the world” (Matt. 13:38).
“The good seed are (represent) the sons of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:38).
“The reapers are (represent) angels” (Matt. 13:39).
“The odors are (represent) the prayers of the saints” (Rev. 5:8).
“The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains” (Rev. 17:9).
“This cup is (represents) the new covenant” (1Cor. 11:25).
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not represent) the blood of Christ?” (1Cor. 10:16).

Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer. For example, in Matt. 16:18, the Pronoun “this” is Feminine, and thus agrees with petra, which is also Feminine, and not with petros (Peter) which is Masculine. See note, and Ap. 147.

So here : the Pronoun “this” is Neuter, and cannot agree with artos ( = bread) because artos is Masculine. It must refer to what is Neuter; and this could only be the whole act of breaking the bread, which would be Neuter also; or to klasma, the broken piece (which is also Neuter). In like manner, when He said (in v. 28) “this is my blood of the New Covenant”; “this”, being Neuter, refers to poterion ( = cup) (*1) and not to oinos ( = wine), which is Masculine, and means :— “This [cup] represents My blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many, for remission of sins”.

For, what was the Lord doing? He was making the New Covenant foretold in Jer. 31:31-34. If it were not made then, it can never be made at all (see Ap. 95), for no more has He blood to shed (Luke 24:39). Now, “blood” was shed, and sacrificially used, only in connection with two things, making of a covenant, and the making of atonement. In the former, the victim which made or ratified the covenant was slain and the body divided in two, the parties to the covenant passing between (see notes on Gen. 15:9-18. Jer. 34:18. Gal. 3:20. and Ap. 95). As long as the victim (the covenant maker) was alive the covenant could have no force. See notes on Heb. 9:16-22.

At the last supper this New Covenant was made; and Peter’s proclamation in Acts 2:38; 3:19-26; 5:31; and Paul’s in 13:38; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; were based upon it.

Messiah had to be “cut off”, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Acts 3:18). But that having been accomplished, and the sufferings having been endured, nothing stood in the way of the glory which should follow. “Repent ye THEREFORE and turn [to the Lord] that your sins may be blotted out”, &c. The New Covenant which had been made had provided for that, as the Lord had said in Matt. 26:28, “for the remission of sins”.

In that last supper the Lord was not instituting anything with a view to the Secret (the “Mystery” to be yet revealed in the Prison Epistles); but was substituting bread and wine for the Paschal Lamb (the type being exhausted in the Antitype), because of the new meaning which the Passover should henceforth convey. It was to be the Memorial, not of the Exodus from Egypt, but of the Exodus which the Lord afterward accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31), according to the New Covenant made by His death.

(*1) Poterion being put by Metonymy (of Adjunct), Ap. 6, for the contents, for the “cup” itself could not be swallowed.

Appendix List

Home | About LW | Site Map | LW Publications | Search
Developed by © Levend Water All rights reserved

Good try but the author of this 'study' has neglected some very important facts while misconstruing others.

Furthermore, it is a fundamental law in Greek grammar, without exception, that the Article, Pronoun, and Adjective must agree in gender with the Noun to which they refer.

At the Last Supper when our Lord spoke the words of Institution, he was speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. Amongst the 22 churches that make up the Catholic Church, several (including mine) retain those words in the language of Jesus.

The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times. The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.

The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.

1 Cor 11:23-29: For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.

Mk 14:22-24: While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."

The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.

Mt 26:26-28: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.

Lk 22:15-20: He (Jesus) said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, for, I tell you, I shall not eat it (again) until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."

The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).

Jn 6:53-56: Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.

The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.

Jn 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Jn 6:53: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Jn 6:54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
Jn 6:55: For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.

Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.

Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.

1 Cor 10:16: The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.

Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.

In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.

In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.

Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically. cf