The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology - Saint Mary ...

The "is" is just as literal in a metaphor as in the plainest and most
prosaic sentence. Those who deny this show that they do not see the real
point. The seven ears literally are seven years, though the seven ears are
not literal ears, but dream-ears. If they were literal ears, they could not be
years. The leaven of the Pharisees literally is hypocrisy, but the leaven of
the Pharisees is not literal leaven; if it were, it could not be hypocrisy. The
two women literally are the two covenants, but the two women are not
literal women, but allegorical women. As natural women they could not be
covenants. The seed literally is the word, but the seed is not literal seed,
otherwise it could not be the word--it is Gospel-seed. Now, in the case of
metaphorical leaven, seed or bread, there is a metaphor to drop, but in the
case of literal leaven, seed, or bread, there is no metaphor to drop; hence
seven natural ears of corn cannot be seven years, nor can wheat or rye be
the word, nor baker's bread be Christ's body. "This is My body" can mean
but one thing, so far as the is is involved: This literally is My body. If there
is a metaphor, it must lie in the word "body." Is it Christ's literal body
which is meant? If the body which is given for us be Christ's literal body,
then the sentence -can mean only one thing: This literally is My literal
body. When we say "the" Church is Christ's body, we mean that the
Church literally is Christ's body--literally is that which is called Christ's
body by the apostle. Then the question, Is there a metaphor? means, Is
literal body meant? The answer here is, No; it is the assembly of believers
in Christ. If the apostle had written, The Church is the body of Christ
which was crucified, he would have written nonsense. Why?
Reductio ad absurdum.
It seems incredible that on a basis so slight should have rested the
opposition of millions, for centuries, to the doctrine of the Church. The
whole thing is capable of a reductio ad absurdum. If "is" means "is a
symbol of," then the right way for our Lord to have announced the
doctrine of a true presence would have been to say: "This is not My body;"
which would mean, "This is not a symbol of My body," the inference, of
course, being that as it is not a symbol of the body, it is the body itself. On
this style of