The Meaning of “Is”

Newsletter Article for August 1999

© 1999 Rev. Paul A. Wolff

One of the most bizarre bits of information to come out of the investigation and impeachment of President Clinton was a sound bite of him trying to avoid admitting his sexual relationship with a young woman who was not his wife. He said the following on August 17, 1998 to the grand jury investigating the Jones' harassment case. What Mr. Clinton said was, “That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.”

As soon as this statement became public Mr. Clinton was (and continues to be) harshly derided for this transparent effort to avoid giving a straight answer to a direct, although poorly worded, question. He was asked, “Is there a relationship?” instead of “Was there a relationship?” Taking advantage of this small mistake, Mr. Clinton focused on the tense of the verb, saying that “is” doesn't mean “was” or “will be.” The verb “to be” is one of the most basic verbs in the English language, or any other language for that matter. To quibble over the meaning of “is” is to be completely ignorant, or desperate, or malicious.

This is not the first time in history that the meaning of “is” has been called into question. A long, long time before our scoundrel President tried to weasel his way out of admitting his sordid affair with a young intern some prominent theologians in the sixteenth century debated the meaning of Jesus' words about the Lord's Supper, “This is my body”. The meaning of “is” which was at issue then compares two equivalent things, or states that one thing is exactly the same as another, or that two things are, in fact, the same thing. This incident is particularly meaningful for Lutherans so I would like take this opportunity to review this historical debate.

The focus of the dispute in 1529 was the Lord's Supper. Specifically, it was the question of the real, physical, bodily presence of Jesus in the bread and wine of the Sacrament. Ulrich Zwingli was a Swiss reformer who could not accept the miraculous nature of the sacrament. Since it is naturally impossible for a body to be physically present in two or more places at once, Zwingli claimed that when Jesus said, “This is my body” He really meant, “This represents my body.” By saying that “is” means “symbolizes” or “represents” Zwingli was saying that the physical body of Jesus is not present in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper even though Jesus says it is.

Martin Luther, the German reformer, maintained that the words of Jesus are clear and unambiguous. When Jesus said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” that is exactly what He was giving His disciples in the bread and wine. Luther claimed that Jesus wasn't speaking figuratively or metaphorically, but literally.

Luther didn't try to explain how Jesus could give His body and blood in bread and wine to His disciples, instead Luther simply trusted that because Jesus is both God and man, He has the power to do whatever He says. If Jesus says that the bread is His body and the wine is His blood, then it must be just as He says it is. The words of Jesus are clear about what He was then giving to His disciples, and what He now gives to all who receive the Sacrament to this very day. Even if a billion Christians around the world receive the Lord's Supper each Sunday each receives the body and blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and the strengthening of their faith.

To try to explain away miracles such as the real, bodily presence of Jesus in the Sacrament is to cast doubt on Jesus, on His power, on His person, and ultimately, it casts doubt on Christ's ability to save us from our sins. After all, if Jesus cannot personally give each communicant His body and blood to eat and drink in the Lord's Supper, as He says He does, then we cannot be sure that He can reach us with His forgiveness, as He also says He does.

If we claim that Jesus isn't really present in the Sacrament, how do we suppose that Jesus will recognize each of us when He returns to judge us? Jesus says in John 10:14, “I know my sheep, and my sheep know me” and we should trust that he is telling the truth there, too, but in the Lord's Supper we have His promise made more sure because He personally gives us His body and blood. We are in Christ because He makes us part of His body as 1 Corinthians 12:27 states, “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” So when Christ returns, He will know His people because He is a part of them, and they are a part of His body.

It is truly a mystery how Jesus can give His true body and blood to each person in the world who receives the Sacrament. Fortunately for us Jesus doesn't ask that we understand it, or be able to explain it, He simply asks us to believe it. And although Jesus doesn't tell us how He does this, He does tell us why. Jesus' body and blood is “for you” (1 Corinthians 11:24 and Luke 22:19-20) and “for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)

You don't have to be a scholar to understand what “is” means. We all use it every day. I have used a form of the verb “to be” in each paragraph of this essay, and I didn't even try to do this, it came naturally. People's inability to believe God's word doesn't come from a lack of understanding of the grammar of Scripture. Instead unbelief comes from a lack of faith in God and in His power to save us. We may not always understand why God does what He does, but we should trust that God loves us all, and that everything He does, He does because of His love so that we will be saved from our sins and receive eternal life through Jesus Christ our savior.

P.S. I found it interesting when looking up the definition for “be” in my dictionary among several examples of the usage of this verb and its cognates there were two examples from Holy Scripture: “God is love” 1 John 4:16 ; and “Christ is risen from the dead” 1 Corinthians 15:20.