"This is my body": does the copula establish a Real Presence?

Type: interpretive argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — the bare copula decides nothing: "This is my body" is grammatically the most figure-friendly of the eucharistic texts (a Semitic idiom that omits "is," a Passover formula that predicates "is" of symbolic bread, and Jesus' habitual "I am the vine" speech), so its realist force comes from the wider context and the early reception, not from the word "is" · pressed hardest by Luther ("no trope"), against Huldrych Zwingli's est = significat.

The question

The words of institution — "Take, eat; this is my body … this is my blood of the new testament" — stand in all three Synoptics and in Paul (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–25), and are the single sentence most often produced as the knock-down proof of the Real Presence.¹ The realist reads the copula as identity: the bread is his body. The memorialist reads it as Huldrych Zwingli did — "is" for "signifies," est = significat — so the bread represents his body. The wider hinge (John 6, Paul's realism, the patristic reception) is weighed on the hinge page; this page isolates the narrower and sharper question, can the words of institution carry the doctrine by themselves? — and finds that, whichever way the doctrine finally goes, the bare copula cannot.

The case for the realist reading

The plain sense, and the refusal of a softening. "This is my body" is a declarative identity-statement; nothing in the institution narratives flags it as a trope, and unlike the "I am the vine" sayings it is spoken over an object actually handed across the table. Luther made this the ground he would not yield: the words are "distinct, clear … words, which certainly are no trope," and at Marburg (1529) he chalked Hoc est corpus meum on the table and refused Zwingli the hand of fellowship over precisely this sentence.²

The early reception took it as identity. Reading the same words, the Fathers deny that a "type" is meant. Theophylact, gathering the Greek tradition, is explicit: "By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lord's Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.'"³ Ambrose makes the words themselves the efficient cause of a conversion — "before the blessing … it is bread; but when the words of Christ have been spoken, it becomes the body of Christ" — and Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Jerome read the institution as the giving of the "verity of His Body and Blood."⁴ That the earliest readers heard identity, not metaphor, is a real datum.

The case against — why the copula cannot carry the weight

Jesus did not say "is." He spoke Aramaic (or Hebrew), which normally omits the copula: the sentence behind the Greek is "This — my body," with no verb at all and the relation left unspecified. Joachim Jeremias's classic study makes the point the starting place of all modern discussion — the Greek ἐστιν ("is") is the evangelists' supplied word, and cannot by itself bear a metaphysics of identity that the underlying utterance never expressed. Honesty cuts both ways here: the missing copula does not hand the verse to Zwingli either, since Semitic "this [is] X" often does assert identity (Joseph's "I [am] Joseph," Gen 45:3; "this [is] he," 1 Sam 16:12). The point is not that "represents" wins, but that the naked grammar is silent.⁵

A figurative model sat on the very table. The Supper was a Passover meal, and the Passover haggadah supplies a declaratory formula in which "is" is plainly representational: the head of the household lifts the unleavened bread and says, "This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt." Jeremias took this liturgical pattern as the model for Jesus' own words of interpretation over bread and cup — a first-century Jewish idiom in which "this is X" glosses a symbol, standing ready to hand at the exact moment Jesus spoke.⁶

Jesus' habitual "I am" idiom, and an early "figure." The Johannine Jesus predicates "am" of metaphors as a matter of course — "I am the door," "I am the true vine," "I am the bread of life" — none a substance-claim; on that pattern "this is my body" is easily heard as vivid sign-language. And the earliest surviving gloss on the copula is figurative: Tertullian, against Marcion, paraphrases "This is my body" as "that is, the figure (figura) of my body." His own purpose is anti-docetic — "a figure … there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body" — so he is no memorialist witness; but he shows that a "figure"-reading of the copula was available and unembarrassing to a realist writer c. 208, which is exactly why the bare word "is" cannot settle the dispute.⁷

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The realist reception is early, wide, and unforced, and "this is my body" does read most naturally as identity to a Greek ear — the memorialist who insists it is obviously a trope overreaches as badly as the apologist who insists it is obviously not. The strongest realist case, though, is not the copula but its neighbours: John 6's escalating, scandalizing concreteness and Paul's "guilty of the body and blood" — the words of institution inherit their weight from that context and from the reception, and are far stronger read with them than as a stand-alone syllogism from the verb "is."

What is overstated. The popular apologetic — and Luther's "no trope" — treats the grammar of "is" as itself decisive, and it is not. A Semitic original that omits the copula, a Passover formula that predicates "is" of symbolic bread, and Jesus' pervasive metaphorical "I am" all show that the sentence's form is equally at home in an identity-claim and a sign-claim. The copula therefore neither proves the Real Presence (against the apologist) nor proves a bare symbol (against Zwingli): it is the weakest, not the strongest, leg of the realist case, however popular it is as a proof-text. The overstatement is flagged on Luther's page.

Assessment

Contested. Taken by itself — the question this page isolates — "This is my body" does not establish the Real Presence, and it does not refute it: the underlying Aramaic omits the copula, the Passover haggadah and Jesus' "I am" idiom supply ready figurative models, and yet the early Church heard the words as identity without strain. The realist reading is, on balance, the better fit for the first-century and patristic evidence — but that verdict rests on John 6, Paul, and the reception, not on the force of the word "is," which is genuinely silent between identity and representation. Popular use of the institution words as a self-evident knockout overreaches in either direction; hence contested, and the doctrine's real weight lies with the hinge argument, not here.

Sources