This is my Body.
(Please note that my software
won't cope with Greek, so forgive the nonsense stuff in brackets!
If you are
into Greek you can click here
for a .pdf file of the article)
In answer to several requests, and as a specimen of the
work now in preparation by the same author on Figures of Speech used in the
Bible, the following is now published as a separate pamphlet.The Plan of that
work is as follows :—
1. To give in its proper order and place each one
of more than two hundred figures of speech, by name.
2. Then to give the
proper pronunciation of its name.
3. Then its etymology, showing why the
name was given to it, and what is its meaning.
4 And after this, a number of
passages of Scripture, in full, where the figure is used, ranging from two or
three instances, to some hundreds under each figure, accompanied by a full
explanation.
“Metaphor “ is one of these figures which is
defined, described, and illustrated in the last division of the work, and we
give the following extract from the MS., confining ourselves to one passage by
way of illustration, viz., Matt. xxvi. 26 :— METAPHOR Met’-a-phor.
Greek, µetaf??? (metaphora), a transference, or carrying over or across.
From µet? (meta), beyond or over, and f??e?? (pherein), to carry. We may
call the figure “Representation” or “Transference.” Hence,
while the Simile gently states that one thing is like or resembles another, the
Metaphor boldly and warmly declares that one thing IS the other. While the
Simile says “all flesh is AS grass”(i Pet. i. 24), the Metaphor
carries the figure across at once, and says “all flesh IS grass”
(Isa. xl. 6). This is the distinction between the two. The Metaphor is,
therefore, not so true to fact as the Simile, but is much truer to feeling.
The Simile says “All we like sheep,” while the Metaphor declares that
“we ARE the sheep of His pasture.” While, therefore, the word
“resembles” marks the Simile; “represents” is the word that
marks the Metaphor. We have recourse to Metaphor when we say of a picture,
“This is my father,”or “This is my mother.” The verb
“is” means in this case represents; there may not be the least
resemblance! The verb “is” always has this meaning, and no other when
used as a metaphor. No other verb will do. Few figures are more misunderstood
than the Metaphor. It is one of the few whose names are well known, and hence
it has become a general term for any figure; and any figurative language is
popularly called “metaphorical.” Few figures have been more variously
defined. But all the differences of opinion arise from not separating the
figure of Hypocatastasis (q.v.) on the one hand, or distinguishing Simile on
the other. The same confusion is seen with reference to Allegory (q.v.). Let it
then be clearly understood that a Metaphor is confined to a distinct
affirmation that one thing is another thing owing to some association or
connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The two
nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their
absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure
lies wholly in the verb, or copula, which must always be expressed and never
understood by Ellipsis. For example, “All flesh IS grass.” Here
“flesh” is to be taken literally as the subjectspoken of, and
“grass” is to be taken equally literally as that which represents
“flesh.”. All the figure lies in the verb “is.” This
statement is made under strong feeling, the mind realising some point of
association, but instead of using the more measured verb,
“resembles,” or “is like,” which would be truer to fact,
though not so true to feeling, the verb “is” is used, and the meaning
of one thing is carried across and transferred to the other. It is not, as some
might think, a mere Hebrew idiom to use “is “for
“represents,” but it is a necessity of language arising from the
actual condition and character of the human mind. We must, therefore, banish
the popular and loose way in which the words “metaphor” and
“metaphorical” are used, and confine the figure strictly and
exclusively to this its one true and proper representation. [other examples
given] ... Matt. xxvi. 26, — “This is My body” (t??t? ??t? t?
s?µ? µ??, touto esti to soma mou).
Few passages have been more perverted than these simple
words. Rome has insisted on the literal or the figurative sense of words just
as it suits her own purpose, and not at all according to the laws of philology
and the true science of language. Hence the Latin idiom, “agere
penitentiam” repent, has been rendered literally in all her versions from
the Vulgate, in various languages, “do penance,” except when God is
said to repent! Rome dared not translate "agere penitentiam" literally in these
cases, which proves her design in thus systematically perverting the Word of
God, and the false doctrine is thus forced into the words under a show or
semblance of literal translation.
So the Metaphor, “This is My
body,” has been forced to teach false doctrine by being translated
literally. No perversion of language has been fraught with greater calamity to
the human race. Tens of thousands have suffered martyrdom at the hands of Rome,
rather than believe the “blasphemous fable” forced into these words.
The exquisite tortures of the Inquisition were invented to coerce the
consciences of men and compel them to accept this lie! Luther himself was
misled, through his ignorance of this simple law of figurative language. In his
controversy with Zwingle, he obstinately persisted in maintaining the literal
sense of the figure, and thus forced it to have a meaning which it never has.
He thus led the whole of Germany into his error! For while his common sense
rejected the error of “Transubstantiation,” he fell into another, and
invented the figment of “Consubstantiation,” and fastened it upon the
Lutheran Church to this day.
What a solemn and instructive lesson as to the
importance of a true understanding of the figures of language! The whole
figure, in a metaphor, lies, as we have said in the verb substantive,
“IS”; and not in either of the two nouns, and it is a remarkable fact
that when a pronoun is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and
the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in
gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the
noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once
shows us that a figure is being employed when a pronoun which ought, according
to all the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed
and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.
Here,
for example, the pronoun, “this” (t??t?, touto), is neuter, and is
thus made to agree with “body” (s?µ?, soma), which is neuter,
and not with bread (??t??, artos], which is masculine? This is the case always
in Metaphors, and a few examples may be cited here, instead of in their natural
order and place. In Zech. v. 6, “This is wickedness.” Here
“this” (fem.) does not agree with “ephah” (to which it
refers), which is neuter (LXX.), but with “wickedness,” [verse 8,
cjs] which is feminine. In Zech. v. 3, “This is the curse.”
“This” (fem.) agrees with “curse,” which is feminine, and
not with “flying roll,” which is neuter (to which it refers)
(d??pa???, drepanon, LXX.). In Matt. xiii. 38, “The good seed are the
children of the kingdom.” Here “these” (masc.) (??t??, houtoi)
agrees with “children of the kingdom” (masc.), and not with seed
(sp??µa, sperma) which is neuter. Luke viii. 14, “These are they
which having heard,” etc. Here, “these” (masc.), (??t??, houtoi)
agrees with the participle (?? ????sa?te?, hoi akousantes) “they which
having heard,” which is masculine, and not with the seed (to which it
refers), which is neuter.
All this establishes our statement that, in a
Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that the
figure lies only in the verb. Another remarkable fact is that in the vast
number of cases where the language is literal, and there is no Metaphor at all,
the verb is omitted altogether. Even when a Metaphor has been used, and the
language passes suddenly from figurative to literal, the verb is at once
dropped, by Ellipsis as not being necessary for the literal sense, as it was
for the previous figurative expression, e.g., in 1 Cor. xii. 27, “Ye ARE
the body of Christ.” Here is a Metaphor, and consequently the verb is
used. But in verse 29, which is literal, the change is at once made, and the
fact is marked by the omission of the verb, “[Are] all apostles? [are] all
prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles?”
Next
compare other examples of Metaphors which are naturally used in the
explanations of Parables. Note the Parables of the Sower, and of the Tares
(Matt. xiii. 19-23, and 37-39).“He that soweth the good seed IS (i.e.,
represents) the Son of Man.”“The field IS (i.e., signifies) the
world.”“The good seed ARE the children of the kingdom.”“But
the tares ARE the children of the wicked one.” “The enemy that sowed
them IS the devil.” “The harvest IS the end of the age.”
“And the reapers ARE the angels.” In all these (as in every other
Metaphor) the verb means, and might have been rendered, “represents”
or “signifies.” The Apocalypse is full of Metaphors, e.g. : “The
seven stars ARE (i.e., represent) the seven churches.” “And the seven
candlesticks which thou sawest ARE the seven churches” (i. 20). “The
odours ARE the prayers of the saints” (v. 8). “They ARE the spirits
of devils” (xvi. 14). “The seven heads ARE (i.e. represent) seven
mountains (xvii. 9), etc., etc. So in the very words that follow “this IS
(i.e. represents or signifies) My body,” we have another undoubted
Metaphor.” He took the cup ... saying . . . this IS My blood.” Here,
thus, we have a pair of Metaphors. In the former one, “this” refers
to “bread,” and it is claimed that “IS “means changed into
the “body” of Christ. In the latter, “this” refers to
“the cup,” but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into
“blood.” At least, we have never heard that such a claim has been put
forward. The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these
two verses is the proof that the former is wrong. In i Cor. xi. 25 we read,
“this cup IS the new covenant.” Will Romanists, in and out of the
Church of England, tell us how this “cup” becomes transubstantiated
into a “covenant”? Is it not clear that the figure in the words,
“This is My body,” is forced into a. literal statement with the set
purpose and design of making it teach and support erroneous doctrine?
Other
examples of Metaphor in this immediate connection are: i Cor. x. 16. “The
cup of blessing which we bless, IS it not (i.e. does it not represent) the
blood of Christ, “through which all blessing comes to us? “The bread
which we break, IS it not (i.e., does it not represent) the communion of the
body of Christ?” i.e. does it not signify the fellowship of all the
members of Christ’s mystical body, who, being many, ARE one body (i Cor.
xii. 12)? “For we, being many, ARE one bread and one body,” as i Cor.
x. 17 declares. It is because those who eat of that bread do not
“discern” or discriminate that “one body” (i.e., Christ
mystical), that they are said to eat to their own condemnation; for they
witness to the fact of that “great mystery” and yet are ignorant of
its truth! And hence they condemn themselves.
Further, the verb, e?µ?
(eimi), I am, or the infinitive of it, to be, means to be in the sense of
signifying, amounting to. And that this is one of its primary senses may be
seen from the following passages, where it is actually translated “to
mean” and not merely to be:– “But go ye and learn what that
IS” (i.e., meaneth, as in A.V.), Matt. ix. 13. “But if ye had known
what that IS “(A.V., meaneth), Matt. xii. 7. “He asked what these
things WERE” (A.V., meant), Luke xv. 26. “What IS this?” (A.V.,
“What meaneth this?”) Acts ii. 12. “Now, while Peter doubted in
himself what this vision WAS which he had seen” (A.V., “What this
vision should mean”), Acts x. 17, etc., etc. On the other hand, if an
actual change is meant, then there must be a verb which shall plainly and
actually say so: for the verb “to be” never has or conveys any idea
of such change. The usual verb to express such a change is ????µa?
(ginomai), which means to be or become. Mark iv. 39, “There was (i.e.,
there became) a great calm,” and the storm was changed into calm. Luke iv.
3, “Command this stone that it be made (i.e. changed into) bread.”
John ii. 9, “When the ruler of the feast tasted the water that was made
wine.” John xvi. 20, “Your sorrow shall be turned into joy.”
Acts xxvi. 28, Agrippa said, “Almost thou persuadeth me to be (i.e., to
become) a Christian.” Rev. viii. 8, “The third part of the sea became
blood,’ and verse 11, “Many men died of the waters, because they were
made bitter.”
In all these cases the verb is ????µa? (ginomai),
to become: and if the Lord meant that the bread became His body, this is the
verb He would have necessarily used. The fact that He did not use it, but used
the simple verb, e?µ? (eimi), instead, i.e., “is,” proves
conclusively that no change was meant, and that only representation was
intended. Just as when we are looking over a map and say, “This IS
England,” “This IS America,” “This IS Palestine,”
etc., we do not mean that that piece of paper is England, but we mean that
those marks upon it represent those respective countries. From all this it is
philologically, philosophically, and scientifically clear that the words,
“This is My body,” mean “This [bread] represents My body.”
And as Professor Macbeth has put it, “We trample on the laws of nature,
and we trample on the laws of language when we force the verb ‘is’ to
mean what it never does mean.”
And besides all this, to pass from the
use made of this perversion, suppose for a moment that we grant the claim, and
the words mean that the Lord Jesus then and there did transmute the bread into
His own body (if we can imagine such an impossibility!), what then? Where is
there a breath of His giving that power to any one else? Where is there one
word about such a gift being conferred?” And if it be claimed, as it is by
some traitors in the Church of England, that the words, “Do this,”
convey that power and authority, it could have been conveyed only to the eleven
who were present. Where is there a breath about not only giving them power, but
delegating it to them to give to others, and these to others again
indefinitely? There is not one single word expressed or implied that conveys
the idea that one iota of such power was conferred or delegated.
So that
the whole fabric of transubstantiation rests on absolutely no foundation
whatsoever! There is a “missing link” which is fatal to the whole
position. And this, on the assumption which we have for the moment granted. But
when it is seen that not only is there this missing link, which can never be
supplied, but that there is also this claim which can never be substantiated,
we have an explanation of the Metaphor which sweeps the dogma out of the
Scriptures, and proves it to be a fiction which is the outcome of ignorance,
and this by arguments that cannot be overthrown, and facts that cannot be
denied.