Covenant Memorial
A Fresh Perspective on Real Prescence
This study includes the contribution of the more responsible Anabaptist voices. It is the view of the author that the caricatured, “mere memorialism”, often attributed to the Radical Reformation does real injustice to its best theologians.
It is written in direct theological dialogue with the Reformation traditions, while keeping the Hebrew–memorial framework as the evaluative lens.
1. Framing the Question Properly
Reformation debates over the Eucharist are often narrated as disputes over presence:
- Is Christ “really” present?
- If so, how?
- If not, what remains?
This framing, however, already assumes a post-patristic problem-setting shaped by medieval metaphysics. When the Eucharist is instead examined through the biblical logic of memorial (zikkaron / anamnesis), a different picture emerges: many Reformation positions are less divided over whether Christ is present than over how covenantal presence should be spoken of responsibly.
2. Presence Guarded by Promise
Luther’s Eucharistic theology is best understood as a fierce defence of Christ’s promise against both scholastic speculation and reductionist symbolism.
For Luther:
- Christ’s words “This is my body” are performative promises,
- presence rests on divine speech, not on priestly action or metaphysical explanation,
- the sacrament gives what it promises because Christ binds himself to it.
In The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther insists that the sacrament is:
“A testament and promise of God… sealed with a sign.”
Although Luther affirms a strong Real Presence, his concern is not to explain how Christ is present, but to ensure that faith receives what Christ has promised. In this sense, Luther stands closer to a covenantal–memorial theology than is often acknowledged.
Where Luther diverges from a memorial framework is in his reluctance to emphasise anamnesis as covenantal participation, fearing it might weaken the objectivity of Christ’s gift. Yet structurally, his theology still rests on:
- sign,
- promise,
- divine fidelity.
3. Spiritual Participation without Reduction
Calvin is often read as occupying a “middle position,” but this risks understating the sacramental density of his view.
In Institutes IV.17, Calvin argues:
- Christ is really present,
- believers truly feed on Christ,
- the mode of presence is spiritual, not local, mediated by the Holy Spirit.
Crucially, Calvin explicitly rejects:
- bare symbolism,
- re-sacrifice,
- metaphysical localisation.
Instead, he writes:
“The sacraments are testimonies of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign.”
Calvin’s Eucharistic theology aligns remarkably well with biblical memorial logic:
- the sacrament does not repeat the cross,
- it makes believers participants in its benefits,
- presence is covenantal and relational.
Where Calvin differs from some later Protestant developments is precisely here: he refuses to reduce memorial to recollection. For Calvin, remembrance is participation, enacted through the Spirit.
In this respect, Calvin stands closer to the patristic and Hebrew zikk?rôn framework than many of his heirs.
4. The Responsible Anabaptist Tradition: Memorial as Covenant Fidelity
The Radical Reformation is frequently—and unfairly—collapsed into “Zwinglian memorialism.” This obscures the theological seriousness of several Anabaptist thinkers who understood the Lord’s Supper as a communal, covenantal, and transformative memorial, even while rejecting metaphysical Real Presence.
4.1 Hubmaier strongly rejects transubstantiation and re-sacrifice, yet he does not treat Communion as empty symbol. For him, the Supper is:
- a confession of faith,
- a binding communal act,
- a participation in Christ’s covenant through obedience and discipleship.
He writes that the Supper is a “memorial of the suffering of Christ” that forms believers into a faithful people. Presence is not denied, but understood ethically and communally rather than ontologically.
4.2 Marpeck offers perhaps the most theologically rich Anabaptist account.
Drawing heavily on covenant and incarnation theology, he insists that:
- external signs without inward faith are empty,
- inward faith without embodied obedience is false.
The Supper, for Marpeck, is a covenantal enactment that binds believers to Christ and to one another. This resonates strongly with the emphasis on:
- participation,
- community,
- loyalty rather than mere cognition.
Marpeck’s theology avoids both sacramental automatism and subjective reduction by locating efficacy in obedient faith responding to divine promise.
5. Revisited: Beyond the Caricature
Zwingli is often treated as the archetype of “mere memorialism.” Yet even Zwingli emphasises that the Supper:
- proclaims Christ’s saving work,
- strengthens faith,
- binds the community publicly to Christ’s lordship.
Where Zwingli falls short—measured against biblical memorial theology—is in restricting remembrance to human cognition rather than covenantal action. Yet even here, he resists the idea that the Supper is trivial or optional; it is a public act of allegiance.
Zwingli’s weakness is not ethical or ecclesial seriousness, but his reduced account of how God acts through signs.
6. Memorial as the Evaluative Key
When a memorial theology—rooted in Exodus 12 and covenantal remembrance—is applied as a critical lens, the Reformation landscape looks different:
- Luther preserves objective divine promise, but underplays anamnesis.
- Calvin articulates participatory memorial through the Spirit.
- Responsible Anabaptists preserve communal covenant fidelity and ethical seriousness.
- Zwingli safeguards divine freedom but narrows sacramental action too far.
What unites the best of these traditions is a shared refusal to:
- repeat sacrifice,
- treat the Eucharist as magical,
- sever faith from obedience.
Our framework draws their strengths together by insisting that:
God acts covenantally through memorial signs he has appointed, and faithful participation is real participation.
7. Concluding Synthesis
Seen through a Hebrew–biblical theology of memorial, the Reformation debates are not primarily about whether Christ is present, but how divine presence should be named without violating the once-for-all nature of redemption or the freedom of God.
This Eucharistic theology stands in constructive continuity with:
- the patristic tradition,
- Calvin’s participatory sacramentalism,
- and the most theologically responsible Anabaptist teaching.
It avoids:
- sacramental coercion,
- metaphysical reduction,
- ethical hollowing.
What it recovers is something older and deeper:
memorial as covenantal participation in a saving act that God remembers, honours, and makes effective.
Covenant Memorial
A Fresh Perspective on Real Presence
Copyright © 2026 Colin Dye
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise — without prior written permission of the author, except for:
(1) brief quotations in reviews, and
(2) reproduction for personal use, private study, or non-commercial academic research, provided the work is not altered and proper attribution is given.
Permission is required for commercial use, republication, translation, distribution in course packs, or posting on other websites.
Scripture Translation
Unless otherwise indicated Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®).
Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Occasional emphasis has been added for clarity.