The last supper: "is" versus "means"

by jstalin 3 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jstalin

  I was raised Catholic, so I was a bit surprised when I attended the memorial last year with my JW friend and the speaker was recounting the last supper. He quoted Mark 14:

  22 And as they continued eating, he took a loaf, said a blessing, broke it and gave it to them, and said: “Take it, this means my body.” 23 And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, and they all drank out of it. 24 And he said to them: “This means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many.

  Of course, the "means" jumped out at me because I'm used to the Catholic tradition of transubstantiation - the belief that the wine and bread literally become Christ's blood and body, as I believe is supported by more traditional translations, such as the KJV:

  14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
  14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
  14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

  So, anyways, the transubstantiation isn't the issue here, it's the translation of this passage by the watchtower. I'm curious to know how they justify using "means" instead of "is." It seems like the greek would be pretty clear. The KJV version clearly says the blood is shed, but WT says it is poured out.

  Could anyone shine some light on this issue? I realize that drinking Christ's blood would destroy their no blood stance, so how do they handle the translation of this?
• 

  Shazard

  Who needs bible if there is WT? Who needs correct translation if they have their very good translation? :)
  But issue is that they just don't believe what Bible says, so they make it say what they believe.
• 

  mdb

  The translation in the NWT is more than likely incorrect, but I've never looked into that specific verse.

  One thing to note: the wine and bread do not literally become blood and flesh while they journey down your gullet - they're symbols and objects of rememberance. Jesus' flesh and blood are spiritual food and drink. If we eat and drink, we have eternal life and will live forever (if we accept His sacrifice and believe on Him, we have eternal life). If we feed on Him, we live.

  Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
  These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. (Jn 6:53-59)

  Jesus' body was not literally made of bread, and the emblems we partake of in rememberance of Him are and do not become literal flesh and blood.

  Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Cor 11:27-30)

  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Mt 26:26-29)

  And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (Lk 22:19)
• 

  Narkissos

  Terrible translation indeed. Retrojecting interpretation into the text.

  The funny thing is, when "to be" is clearly taken in the sense of "to mean," they don't see the need to do such a thing. E.g. Matthew 13:18ff (NWT):

  "YOU, then, listen to the illustration of the man that sowed. 19Where anyone hears the word of the kingdom but does not get the sense of it, the wicked one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart; this is (houtos estin) the one sown alongside the road. 20 As for the one sown upon the rocky places, this is (houtos estin) the one hearing the word and at once accepting it with joy. 21 Yet he has no root in himself but continues for a time, and after tribulation or persecution has arisen on account of the word he is at once stumbled. 22 As for the one sown among the thorns, this is (houtos estin) the one hearing the word, but the anxiety of this system of things and the deceptive power of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 As for the one sown upon the fine soil, this is (houtos estin) the one hearing the word and getting the sense of it, who really does bear fruit and produces, this one a hundredfold, that one sixty, the other thirty."

  Why didn't they translate "this means"? Simply because there was no interpretative issue, hence no agenda.

  As to the blood issue (or anthropophagy for that matter), this is (!) not really the problem. For instance, they often quote the story in 2 Samuel 23:14ff about the prohibition of drinking human blood:

  David was then in the stronghold; and the garrison of the Philistines was then at Bethlehem. David said longingly, "O that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem that is by the gate!" Then the three warriors broke through the camp of the Philistines, drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate, and brought it to David. But he would not drink of it; he poured it out to the LORD, for he said, "The LORD forbid that I should do this. Can I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?" Therefore he would not drink it. The three warriors did these things.

  It is clear that in that case the water wasn't but meant blood. So how does translating "this means my blood" avoid the problem?

  (Not to mention John 6:53 which was discussed a couple of days ago, where the NWT didn't find any way to get around the text: "Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves. 54 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; 55 for my flesh is (estin) true food, and my blood is (estin) true drink. 56 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me.")