Sorry brother @ILOVECHRIST, since I was busy I wasnt able to answer.
But here I come, I appreciate your patience
The New Testament’e eucharistic texts employ Greek vocabulary and syntax that resists purely metaphorical interpretations, aligning with literal, transformative connotations. Here I give some:
- The copula estin in Touto estin to sōma mou (“This is my Body”):
In Koine Greek, the verb esin (from eimi “to be”) functions as a copula linking subject and predicate. While it can introduce metaphors like “I am the door” in John 10:9, where contexts signal allegory via explanatory clauses, the eucharistic formula lacks such qualifiers (@ILOVECHRIST, very imp). Classical grammarians like Dionysius Thrax in Technē Grammatikē (referece) classify eimi as a substantive verb, that in declarative sentences without modifiers denotes identity or essence rather than similitude. The LXX, estin often conveys literal equivalence as in Gen 41:26, “The seven good cows are [estin] seven years” where Joseph interprets Pharaoh’s dreams.
Literary parallels from classical sources this. In Plato’s Republic, eimi describes as the “being” of forms in a non-metaphroical sense, emphasizing substantial reality. Similarly in Aristotle’s Categories, the copula links substance to predicates without implying mere representation. Applied to the eucharistic words, the absence of particles like hos (“as”) or eikon (“image”) common in symbolic language suggests a declarative act of institution, not analogy.
Protestant Scholar J. Jeremias in The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (SCM PRESS 1966) notes that the Aramaic substratum (hu’ guphi) underlying the greek implies a semitic identificatory forumla, akin to Passover haggadah where symbols become realities in ritual reenactment. This supports an Orthodox reading where the words effect a metabole (change), as in John Damascene’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (4.13). - The Verb “Trōgein” in John 6:51–58:
My main argument was that:
John shifts from the common verb phagein “to eat” used in vv.49-53 for general consumption to trōgein “to gnaw, chew, munch” in vv 54. 56-58.
This is no mere stylistic variant; trōgein carries visceral literal connontations in classical Greek literature. In Homer’s lliad (24.642), it describes animals gnawing bones, emphasizing raw, physical mastication. The Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English lexicon (9th ed, Oxford, 1940) defines trōgō as “gnaw, nibble, munch” primarily for literal eating, especially of raw or tough substance substnces and notes its rarity in metaphorical contexts before the Hellenistic period. In Aristophanes’ Frogs it humorously depicts crunching food, underscoring corporeality.
In Johannine context, this escalation intensifes the scandalm where disciples murmur and depart, implying a literal deamnd unacceptable to symbolic hearers.
The Catholic exegete Raymond Brown the The Gospel According to John (I-XII) argues that trōgein’s graphic nature precludes metaphor, aligning with John’s incarnational theology. Orthodox Theologian Alexander Schmemann echoes this in The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, viewing it as eucharisitc foreshadowing where “eating” effects deification, not mere remembrance.