[one Lord one faith one baptism]

I am aware of your assertion, but still waiting for evidence why the ordinary rules of language should be abandoned here

---

if I said to you, take and eat, this is chicken soup.

under the ordinary rules of language, what would you be expecting to eat?
one might answer - chicken soup.

so......under the ordinary rules of language, if Jesus says take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
What would you be expecting to eat??

[Springfield Reformer]

if I said to you, take and eat, this is chicken soup.

under the ordinary rules of language, what would you be expecting to eat?
one might answer - chicken soup.

so......under the ordinary rules of language, if Jesus says take and eat, THIS IS MY BODY.
What would you be expecting to eat??

An excellent demonstration of my central point. Remember what a metaphor is.  If I say "chicken soup," and I am actually presented with literal chicken soup, I do not have a cross-reference between two dissimilar domains.  That contrast of domains is exactly what triggers the metaphor analysis processing of the human mind.  No contrast, no metaphor. Soup is soup is soup. Big deal.

BUT, if someone is holding something which is clearly not His body, a piece of bread for example, and yet calls it His body, the metaphor recognition wire is tripped, and we automatically begin to look for the lesson of the metaphor, which Jesus provides explicitly, in that like the broken bread, His body is broken for us, and that like the flowing wine, His blood has flowed for us.  Add to that all the prophetic significance of the Passover meal itself, and you have a tremendous, wonderful metaphor of our Savior's great gift of Himself to us. Oh yes, this is most definitely a parable of unmatched love, and one we should never ever forget, to the praise of His glory!

Peace,

SR