Friday, May 17, 2019

This IS My Body vs This MEANS My Body


Matthew 26:26-28. "As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf, and after saying a blessing, he broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said: 'TAKE, eat. This means my body.' And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: 'Drink out of it, all of you, for this means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.'"

One website went on to remark about the use of the word _means_: "...in all other translations, including The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the GREEK SCRIPTURES (published by the Watchtower Society), the Greek word "estin" is translated as "is", not "means". Thus, the English Standard Version translates the verses as follows: "Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" – See also Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
Why does the New World Translation translate it as "means" rather than "is" my body/my blood; when other translations render the word as "is"? Because, according to their reasoning, the bread that Jesus gave his disciples to eat was obviously not literally his fleshly body; and neither was the wine his literal blood. So, rather than faithfully translating Jesus' words as he spoke them, they render it according to what they think Jesus meant. But if Jesus meant to say "this means my body", and "this means my blood of the covenant", he could have done so, for there is a word in Greek that actually means "means" such as appears in the Greek Version of the New World Translation, where the Greek word "semaino" [means] is used, as translated from the English into Greek.

Reply: It is simply not true that "all other translations" translate ESTIN as "is."

Moffatt's Bible has "this means my blood, the new covenant-blood, shed for many, to win the remission of their sins."

The Daniel Mace New Testament: "for this represents my blood, the blood of the new covenant which is shed for mankind for the remission of sins."

William Barclay's NT has "This means my body."

The Authentic New Testament by Hugh J. Schonfield has "Take, eat; this SIGNIFIES my body."  (See also The Simple English Bible footnote)

The Eonian Life Bible: New Testament (Christopher Sparkes) has "This represents my body."

The Translator's New Testament adds in a note: "This saying is interpreted in different ways in different parts of the Church. In the original context the word 'is' can only mean 'stand for', 'represents', as Jesus' actual body was there in it's physical form."

According to https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm the New American Standard Bible translates ESTIN as "mean(s)" 11 times.

The BDAG lexicon, when mentioning the TOUTO ESTIN TO SWMA MOU at Matthew 26:26 referred you to the words AUTH GAR ESTI SUMFORH = "this means misfortune."

So, yes, the Greek could have used another word, but it didn't because it didn't need to, which is evidenced by the above.

From The Interpreter's Bible: "This is my body: The verb 'to be' would not have been expressed in Aramaic, and therefore too much weight cannot be given to it in the Greek. Probably to be paraphrased: 'This means my body' — Moffatt."

"The most satisfactory understanding of the phrase would seem to be 'Take this: this means my body.'" Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by Christopher Stephen Mann 1986

In 1863, a book was released called "Is the doctrine of Transubstantiation scriptural?" In it is written:

...the verb “is” very frequently signifies “to represent,” more especially in the sayings of Christ; and this meaning is the most natural one in the present passage.

In numerous parts of Scripture the words is, are, am, was, signify “represent.” There is not a single passage where they can be rendered “is changed into.” The former interpretation is therefore Scriptural; the latter, unscriptural.

Luke 8. 11. The seed is the word of God.

Matt. 13. 38. The field is the world.

Matt. 13. 38. The good seed are the children of the kingdom.

Matt. 13.38. The tares are the children of the wicked one.

Matt. 13. 39. The enemy that soweth them is the devil.

Matt. 13. 39. The harvest is the end of the world.

Matt. 13. 39. The reapers are the angels.

Gen. 41. 26. The seven good kine are seven years.

Gen. 41. 26. The seven good ears are seven years.

1 Cor. 10. 4. That rock was Christ.

Rev. 1. 20. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches.

Rev. 1. 20. The seven candlesticks are the seven churches.
&c. &c. &c.

In these examples and numerous others, the verb has the meaning of “represent,” and this is the most natural meaning in the words of institution. The bread broken represented Christ’ s body broken on the Cross; and the wine poured out represented his blood shed next day for the sins of the world.

But if the Papal interpretation of the verb be admitted, tares are changed into children; reapers into angels; good kine into years; and candlesticks into churches. The same mode of interpretation would enable any expositor to transform the God of heaven into a sun, a shield, a rock, a fortress, a buckler; for the Scriptures affirm He is all these things. In like manner the Redeemer himself might be transubstantiated into a door, a vine, a rock, a lamb, a lion, a rose, a star; for the Scriptures say He is all these things. Such consequences, in loudest acclamation, proclaim the condemnation of the Papal absurdity.

In common conversation also the verb “is” has the meaning of “represent.” When we point to a picture and say, This is Napoleon, and this is Wellington; we do not mean that Napoleon and Wellington are truly, really, and substantially present, but that the picture represents them. Again, we say, when pointing to a map, This is Europe, and this is Africa; meaning that these countries are represented there. But apply the Papal interpretation of the term “is,” and the most absurd consequences must follow; therefore we are compelled to reject it, even in common conversation.

No comments:

Post a Comment