Mt 26:26 ‘While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.”’

Mk 14:22 ‘While they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.”’

Lk 22:19 ‘Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”’

See also: Jn 6:53-56 and 1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:23-29

These words have, of course, caused great controversy in the church.  The debate centres on the meaning of the meaning of the word ‘is’: does it suggest a literal correspondence, or does it signal a metaphor?

The debate also touches on the meaning of ‘my body’: does it refer to Jesus’ physical body, or to his ‘self’?

Concerning the latter question, Hurtado (commentary on Mark) notes:

‘The original significance of the phrase in Aramaic, the language Jesus customarily spoke with his disciples, would have been “this is my self,” for the most likely Aramaic equivalent to the Greek word translated body here meant “person,” “self,” and the Greek word should therefore be understood with this in mind.’

Fee, however, disagrees.  He thinks that Christ is referring to his actual body, about to be given in death as a sacrificial victim.  (Commentary on 1 Corinthians).

Either way, France (TNTC) states that this is an unmistakeable reference to Jesus’ approaching death.  The command to ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ in Matthew’s version speaks of participation in the effects and benefits of that death (cf. Jn 6:48-58).

But turning now to the main area of disagreement, Morris notes that the words

‘this is my body’ are identical in all three Synoptics.  In the Aramaic there would be no copula.  To insert ‘is’ suggests a relationship of identity which should not be assumed, whereas to insert ‘represents’ indicates a purely figurative meaning.  The meaning is perhaps expressed by Paul, in 1 Cor 11:26 – ‘For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.’

Edwards, similarly:

‘The actual Aramaic would have been, “ ‘This, my body,’ ” with “is” implied. When supplied, “is” suggests a too formal, even mathematical, equation between Jesus and the bread; on the other hand, a paraphrase such as “represents” weakens the relationship between Jesus and the bread to a figurative or symbolic likeness.’

Carson: ‘The words “this is my body” had no place in the Passover ritual; and as an innovation, they must have had stunning effect, an effect that would grow with the increased understanding gained after Easter.’

Osborne: The significance of ‘this is my body’ may be in the brokenness of the bread, and therefore of Jesus’ body; this suggests the redemptive aspects of his death.  Alternatively, the focus may be on the distribution (he ‘gave to them’), and therefore pledging ‘his continued presence in the Eucharist’.

Some see the significance of “this is my body” as coming in the connection between Jesus’ “body” and the “broken” bread (this fits the interpretation of 1 Cor 11), therefore in the redemptive effects of Jesus’ broken body. Others believe the connection is more with the distribution (“gave to them”) than the brokenness; it then would be a promise or pledge of his continued presence in the Eucharist.

Wilkins (NIVAC): ‘It is significant that Jesus uses bread, not the paschal lamb, to initiate the commemoration. Because of his death, the killing of a lamb will no longer be necessary.’

There are four main approaches to interpretation – transubstatiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence, commemoration.

Bruner (commentary on Matthew) contrasts approaches that emphasise the ‘upward’ direction of the Lord’s Supper with those that stress the ‘downward’ aspects.  The former are represented by the old Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which sees the Mass as a sacrifice that humans make to God.  It is also represented by the commemoration model of Zwingli and his followers, according to which the Supper symbolises the believer’s devotion to the Lord.  Both approaches, in different ways, miss the point that the gospel is, first of all, something that God does for us, not something that we do for God.

(a) Transubstantiation

In this view, the bread and wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

According to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstatiation, the bread and wine, having been blessed by the priest, literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

One important corollary of this belief is that the elements, having become the literal body and blood of Christ, the God-man, they are to be worshiped and adored as God himself is worshiped and adored.

According to the Council of Trent:

‘If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as in a sign or in a figure, or virtually, let him be accursed.’

Ott defends the literal interpretation, arguing:

a) From the nature of the words used. One specially notes the realistic expressions alathas brosis = true, real food (v. 55); alathas posis = true, real drink (v. 55); trogein = to gnaw, to chew, to eat (v. 54 et seq.).

b) From the difficulties created by a figurative interpretation. In the language of the Bible to eat a person’s flesh and drink his blood in the metaphorical sense means to persecute him in a bloody fashion, to destroy him. Cf. Ps. 26, 2; Is. 9, 20; 49, 26; Mich. 3:3.

c) From the reactions of the listeners, which Jesus does not correct, as He had done previously in the case of misunderstandings (cf. John 3:3 et seq.; 4, 32 et seq.; Mt. 16:6 et seq.). In this case, on the contrary He confirms their literal acceptance of His words at the risk that His Disciples and His Apostles might desert Him (v. 60 et seq.).

(Cited by Geisler & Mackenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals)

According to the Orthodox Study Bible:

‘The Orthodox Church has always accepted Christ’s words as true, “that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from Him is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (Justin)’

The Orthodox Church, then, teaches that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are truly the body and blood of Christ.  However, Orthodoxy does not attempt to explain this in terms of transubstatiation or consubstatiation.  Rather, it hold this as an unfathomable and unexplainable mystery.

(b) Consubstantiation

At the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther develop his doctrine of consubstatiation.  In this view, Christ’s body is everywhere.  Therefore the elements do not need to be blessed by the priest in order for any change to take place.  Rather, Christ’s body is ‘in, with and under’ the bread and the wine.

(c) Spiritual presence

Advocates of this approach argue that Jesus cannot have been literally identifying the bread with his body, since he was bodily present at the time.  Similar expressions (“I am the door”; “I am the bread of life”; “I am the vine”) suggest that “This is…” can mean “This represents; signifies; symbolises; means”.

Brooks: In the ‘original’ Aramaic, there is no verb ‘is’.  This probably rules out literal identity, as does the fact that Jesus was physically present.  A literal meaning is also probably ruled out by the reference to drinking blood – a thought exceedingly offensive to Jews.  The preceding Passove meal was full of symbolism, making it likely that this meal was also.  The underlying Aramaic word for ‘body’ probably means ‘person’ rather than the physical body.  Brooks favours ‘represents’ rather than ‘is’.

Many interpreters, old and new, have pointed out the absurdity involved in the literal reading.  Barnes is typical:

‘This could not be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them living. And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his living body there changed at once to a dead body, and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the living body of Jesus was before them.’

Blomberg puts the case forcefully:

‘Jesus’ words here have led to massive debates, intra-Christian persecution, and huge theological edifices, the weight of which they cannot bear. The doctrines of transubstantiation (the bread and wine become Christ’s actual body and blood) or consubstantiation (Christ is really present “in, with, and under” the elements) make no sense of Jesus’ words in their historical context. As Jesus holds up a loaf and declares, “This is my body,” no one listening will ever imagine that he is claiming the bread to be the literal extension of his flesh. Moreover, in Aramaic these sentences would have been spoken without a linking verb (“is”), as simply, this, my body and this, my blood. As frequently elsewhere, Jesus is creating a vivid object lesson. The bread symbolizes (represents, stands for, or points to) his crucifixion in some otherwise unspecified sense.’

France (TNTC) adds this note:

‘The verb is, here and in v. 28, should not, of course, be taken in a crudely literal sense; cf. 13:19–23, 37–39, where the same verb is used throughout to indicate a symbolic equivalence.’

According to this view, Christ is really present in the taking of the bread and wine, but sacramentally, not physically.

According to the Book of Common Prayer, communicants feed on Christ ‘in their hearts by faith with thanksgiving’.

Although although not entirely of the same mind in this matter, Luther and Calvin agreed that the truth lay somewhere between the extremes of transubstatiation and mere recollection.

Calvin writes of

‘that wondrous communion of his body and blood, provided we understand that it is effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by that fictitious enclosing of his body under the element.’ (Institutes IV. xvii. 26)

J. C. Ryle (Knots Untied) insists that there is a real presence of Christ ‘with the hearts of all true-hearted communicants in the Lord’s Supper’.  The words, ‘This is my body’, and ‘This is my blood’.

‘were never meant to teach that the bread in the Lord’s Supper was literally Christ’s body, or the wine literally Christ’s blood. But our Lord did mean to teach that every right-hearted believer, who ate that bread and drank that wine in remembrance of Christ, would in so doing find a special presence of Christ in his heart, and a special revelation of Christ’s sacrifice of His own body and blood to his soul.’

Bruce Milne (Know The Truth) steers a path between the two extremes of transubstantiation and mere recollection:

‘Any thought of identifying the elements with the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, on the basis of a supposed original ‘is’ (‘this is my body’), is quite unwarranted. The other extreme, however, by which the Supper is only a symbolic remembering, a sort of Christian Poppy Day, is also challenged by this evidence, which implies a genuine communion with the Lord in his death, not merely a mental recollection (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16ff.).’

Against a literal interpretation, Meyer (a Lutheran, cited by Lange) insists:

‘Since the whole Passover was a symbolical festival of remembrance; since, further, the body of Jesus was still unbroken, and His blood still unshed: none of those present at the table could have supposed that they were doing what was impossible,—that is, that they were in any sense actually eating and drinking the body and blood of the Lord.’

Keener:

‘We should not understand “This is my body” literally, just as we do not take literally the standard Jewish interpretation spoken over the Passover bread: “This is the bread of affliction our ancestors ate when they came from Egypt.”’ (IVP Background Commentary)

Hendriksen (on Matthew): Jesus very frequently used symbolical language (Matt. 16:6; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53–56; 11:11).  In each of the aforementioned cases, the figurative character of our Lord’s language was disregarded by the first hearers.  Also, in each case the context makes it clear that a literal interpretation was mistaken.  This should put us on our guard in the present case.

Hendriksen notes also Jesus’ references to himself as the vine, the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, the bread of life.  In all of these, the meaning is obviously symbolic.  So also it is natural to take the present words in the same way.

Ciampa & Rosner (commentary on 1 Corinthians) point to parallels with the Passover meal:

‘The bread should be understood to represent Christ’s body just as the different elements of the Passover Seder represented and reminded them of different aspects of Israel’s experience of redemption at the time of the exodus. In the Seder they ate unleavened bread to remind them of their forefathers who baked cakes from unleavened dough “that they had brought out of Egypt, for it was not leavened, because they were thrust out of Egypt and could not wait” (Exod. 12:39), and they ate bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8; Num. 9:11) “because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt” (m. Pesaḥim 10:5). The bread of the Lord’s Supper represented and was to remind the disciples of the Lord’s body which was given or broken for them.’

We should note the semantic breadth of to copula eimi, ‘to be’.  Carson cites G.B. Caird’s list of the main types of usage:-

(i) identity: ‘Is the law sin?’ (Rom 7:7
(ii) attribute: ‘No one is good except God along’ (Mk 10:18)
(iii) cause: ‘To be carnally minded is death’ (Rom 8:6)
(iv) resemblance: ‘The tongue is a fire’ (James 3:6)

Carson adds another:-

(v) fulfilment: ‘This is what was spoken by the prophet’ (Acts 2:16)

Clearly, the semantic range of eimi is such that identity cannot be assumed.  For a fuller discussion, see Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, 57-60.

The notorious wording of the Anglican Prayer Book (’seeing that this child is regenerate’) can be taken as analogous to the reference in the Communion Service to the bread as ‘the Body of the Lord’, cf. Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24. In each case, a figure of speech is used in which sign is spoken of in terms of the thing signified.

(d) Commemoration

Reacting against the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstatiation, Zwingli held that ‘this is’ should be understood metaphorically as meaning ‘symbolizes/represents’, rather than ‘has become/been transformed into’ in the Roman Catholic sense or ‘in, with, and around’ in the Lutheran sense.

It is of note to observe that even after their supposed transformation, the elements are still called the bread and cup [cf. 1 Cor 11:26].).

I should mention that a both/and interpretation is offered by F.D. Bruner, in his commentary on Matthew suggests that the ‘this’ refers both to Jesus’ body and to his action in giving it to us.  Bruner observes that the Catholic, Orthodox, continental Reformed and Anglican churches have emphasised the words ‘this is my body’ whereas Anabaptist, independent and charismatic bodies have particularly valued the words: ‘do this in remembrance of me’ (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24).  In Bruner’s view, both emphases can be accommodated.

Conclusion

It is clear enough to me that there is a both a precious commemoration of Christ’s death, but also a real spiritual presence of our Lord to faithful communicants in the Lord’s Supper.