"This Is My Body"

(Matthew 26:26).

This Is Appendix 159 From The Companion Bible.

A figure of speech consists of a word or 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

the reader's attention to what is thus emphasized. For examples see

the notes on Matthew 16:6 : where, had the Lord said "the doctrine

of the Pharisees is like leaven", that would have been the Figure

Simile (Appendix 6). Had He said "the doctrine of the Pharisees is

leaven" the Figure in this case would have been Metaphor

(Appendix 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 Matthew 16:6, the Lord used another

Figure altogether, Videlicet: Hypocatastasis (from hupo = under

(Appendix 104. xviii), kata = down (Appendix 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,

that is to say, 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 representative 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 "Metaphor". But this is not the case. A Metaphor is a

special Figure different and disticnt 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" (Matthew 13:38).

"The good seed are (represent) the sons of the

kingdom" (Matthew 13:38).

"The reapers are (represent) angels" (Matthew 13:39).

"The odours are (represent) the prayers of the saints" (Revelation

5:8).

"The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains" (Revelation

17:9).

"This cup is (represents) the new covenant" (1 Corinthians 11:25).

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (does it not

represent) the blood of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 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 Matthew

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 Appendix 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 verse 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 Jeremiah 31:31-34. If it were not made then, it can never

be made at all (see Appendix 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, the 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 Genesis 15:9-18 Jeremiah

34:18. Galatians 3:20, and Appendix 95). As long as the victim (the

covenant-maker) was alive the covenant could have no force. See

notes on Hebrews 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" etc. The New Covenant which had been made had provided for

that, as the Lord had said in Matthew 26:28, "for the remission of

sins".

In the 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.

NOTE

1Poterion being put by Metonymy (of Ajunct), Appendix 6, for the

contents, for the "cup" itself could not be swallowed