Download PDF Version

What follows is a monograph-style chapter that treats the Anabaptist tradition not as a footnote, but as a coherent theological witness. It is written to correct the caricature of Anabaptism as “mere memorialism,” showing instead a covenantal, participatory, ethically demanding Eucharistic theology that stands in deep continuity with Hebrew memorial logic.

1. Introduction: Recovering a Marginalised Sacramental Theology

The Anabaptist tradition is frequently invoked in Eucharistic debates only to be dismissed. “Memorialism” has become shorthand for theological thinness, ethical reductionism, and denial of Real Presence. Such portrayals not only misrepresent the diversity of Anabaptist theology but obscure one of its most important  contributions: a rigorous covenantal account of memorial and participation grounded in discipleship, communal fidelity, and embodied obedience.

This chapter argues that responsible Anabaptist theologians did not reject sacramentalism per se, but rather rejected sacramentalism detached from covenant obedience. Their Eucharistic theology emerges from a consistentreading of Scripture in which memorial is not cognitive recall but public covenant enactment. When read through the biblical framework of zikkaron, Anabaptist theology appears not as a denial of participation, but as a moral–ecclesial construal of participation.

2. Historical and Theological Context

Anabaptist theology arises amid three pressures:
1. Medieval sacramental automatism, where grace was seen to operate ex opere operato
2. Magisterial reform, which often retained sacramental objectivity while recalibrating authority

3. State-church entanglement, which collapsed ecclesial membership into civic belonging
Anabaptists responded by insisting that:
• the church is a voluntary covenant community,
• discipleship is essential to salvation’s shape,
• sacramental acts cannot contradict lived obedience.
Their sacramental theology cannot be understood apart from this ecclesiology.

3. Memorial as Covenant Act, Not Mental Recall

Anabaptist writers consistently employ the language of memorial (Gedächtnis, Erinnerung),1 but not in the modern psychological sense. Memorial refers to a public, enacted remembrance that binds the community to Christ and to one another.

This aligns closely with Hebrew zikkaron:
• the act remembers the saving event,
• the community reaffirms covenant loyalty,
• the memorial carries ethical consequences.

Thus, when Anabaptists speak of “remembrance,” they mean responsible participation, not symbolic minimalism.

4. Memorial and Confession

Hubmaier is often misrepresented as dismissing sacramental efficacy. In fact, his
opposition was not to presence but to unrepentant participation.
For Hubmaier:
• the Lord’s Supper is a confession of faith,
• it publicly aligns the believer with Christ’s suffering,
• it seals communal bonds of obedience.

He writes that the Supper is a “remembrance of the suffering of Christ” that binds believers to live cruciformly. Participation without discipleship is not harmless—it is a lie.
Hubmaier does not deny that Christ is present; he denies that Christ can be
invoked against his own commandments.2

1 Early Anabaptist writers consistently describe the Lord’s Supper using the language of remembrance
(Gedächtnis, Erinnerung), identifying it as a memorial of Christ’s suffering (Hubmaier, On the Lord’s
Supper, p. 439), while integrating this remembrance with communal participation and discipleship
(Marpeck, Writings, pp. 176–179; Estep, Anabaptist Story, pp. 187–190).
2 Source: H. Wayne Pipkin & John H. Yoder (eds.), Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism
(Scottdale: Herald Press, 1989). Balthasar Hubmaier does not dismiss the significance of the Lord’s
Supper but insists that it is inseparable from faith and obedience, since “where there is no faith, there
is no sacrament” (p. 129). He describes the Supper as a public confession of faith before the church (p.
437), in which believers remember the suffering of Christ (p. 439) and declare their intention to live

5. Covenant, Incarnation, and Eucharistic Reality

Pilgram Marpeck offers the most theologically developed Anabaptist Eucharistic vision. Drawing deeply from covenant theology and incarnation, Marpeck rejects both:
• sacramental coercion (grace without obedience), and
• interiorised spirituality (faith without embodiment).

For Marpeck:
• Christ is truly present to the faithful,
• the Supper is a covenantal meeting place,
• presence is mediated through obedient faith and communal practice.

Marpeck insists that outward signs and inward faith belong together. The Eucharist is neither empty sign nor automatic conduit, but a relational event in which Christ encounters a faithful people.

This mirrors the Passover logic: the sign is effective because it is received in covenant
loyalty.3

6. Eucharist, Ethics, and Ecclesial Discipline

One of the most neglected aspects of Anabaptist sacramental theology is its insistence
that Eucharistic participation requires moral accountability. Church discipline
was not punitive but sacramental: it preserved the integrity of the community’s
covenant life.
The Supper:
• confirms communal reconciliation,
• presupposes restored relationships,
• enacts visible unity. 

according to him (p. 440). Participation binds the community in brotherly love and shared obedience
(pp. 441–442). For this reason, unrepentant participation is not neutral but false: those who partake
without amendment of life “lie before God and the church” (p. 444). Hubmaier’s concern is not to
deny Christ’s reality, but to insist that Christ cannot be claimed apart from obedience to his
commandments (p. 445).
3 Source: William Klassen & Walter Klaassen (eds.), The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck (Scottdale:
Herald Press, 1978). Pilgram Marpeck develops a Eucharistic theology grounded in the Incarnation,
through which God works inwardly by means of outward, visible practices (pp. 172, 199–200). He
rejects both sacramental automatism—since “it is not the bread or wine… that accomplishes anything”
apart from faith (pp. 176–177)—and purely inward spirituality, insisting that God does not give the
Spirit “without means” and that inner reality must be outwardly expressed (pp. 201, 204). The Supper
is therefore a communal participation in Christ, in which believers become “one body” and receive
Christ in fellowship (pp. 178–179). Christ’s presence is not located in the elements themselves, but is
given where faith and obedience are present (pp. 180–181). Outward sign and inward faith belong
together—“neither may be separated without destroying both” (pp. 205–206). The Eucharist is thus
not an object but an event: “not in the element, but in the use,” a participatory encounter between
Christ and his gathered people (pp. 176–178).

 This places Anabaptist theology in continuity with Rabbinic emphases on repentance and reconciliation before atonement, and with Pauline warnings about unworthy participation (1 Cor 11).

7. Presence without Metaphysics

Unlike later debates focused on substance, location, or mechanism, Anabaptists ask a different question:

What kind of people does this meal make us?
Christ’s presence is affirmed not through metaphysical precision but
through transformative encounter. Presence is discerned in:
• obedience,
• love,
• shared life,
• perseverance under suffering.

This does not deny Real Presence; it refuses to abstract it from covenant faithfulness.

8. Comparison with Magisterial Reformers

When placed alongside Luther and Calvin, the Anabaptist position appears less extreme than commonly assumed:
• Like Luther, Anabaptists insist that God’s action cannot be controlled by
ritual.
• Like Calvin, they insist on participation rather than repetition.
• Unlike both, they locate sacramental integrity explicitly within discipleship and ecclesial holiness.

Their divergence lies not in a denial of grace, but in resisting any account of
grace that bypasses obedience.

9. Anabaptists, Memorial, and the Cross

The Anabaptist insistence on memorial does not weaken the cross; it protects its moral and covenantal force. The Supper does not dispense forgiveness mechanically; it summons the community to live out the cruciform life the cross inaugurates.

In this sense, Anabaptist theology implicitly resists Penal Substitutionary reductions that isolate atonement from transformation. Atonement reconciles, and reconciliation reconfigures life.

10. Conclusion: A Necessary Corrective

The Anabaptist witness offers modern theology a crucial reminder: sacraments belong to the church as a community of obedient faith, not to abstract systems of grace.

Their theology:
• recovers memorial as covenant action,
• preserves the once-for-all nature of Christ’s sacrifice,
• insists on real participation without metaphysical coercion,
• integrates Eucharist, ethics, and ecclesiology.

Far from being a theological dead end, responsible Anabaptist Eucharistic theology
represents one of the most biblically consistent and morally serious sacramental
visions within the Christian tradition.

Suggested Sources for Further Development

• Hubmaier, On the Christian Baptism of Believers
• Hubmaier, selected writings
• C. Arnold Snyder, Anabaptist History and Theology
• John Rempel, The Lord’s Supper in Anabaptism
• Alan Kreider, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church

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.

Covenant Memorial

A Fresh Perspective on Real Prescence

Download PDF Version

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.

Covenant Memorial

A Fresh Perspective on Real Prescence

Download PDF Version

Memorial, Presence, and Covenant: A Biblical and Patristic Theology of the Eucharist

Abstract

This essay argues that the Christian Eucharist is best understood as a covenantal memorial (zikkaron)/ anamnesis) that makes present the once-for-all saving act of Christ without repeating or re-performing it. Drawing upon the Passover theology of Exodus 12, the Hebrew conception of memorial as divine action, and early patristic Eucharistic language, the study contends that Real Presence is neither metaphysical abstraction nor symbolic reduction, but relational, participatory, and covenantally enacted. This framework aligns closely with early Christian theology and avoids later distortions that separate presence from memorial or sacrifice from covenant.

1. Memorial in the Hebrew Bible: More Than Human Memory

In the Hebrew Scriptures, memorial ( zikkaron) denotes not subjective recall but ritualised remembrance that elicits divine action. When God “remembers,” covenantal commitments are enacted in the present (Gen 9:16; Exod 2:24).

The Passover account in  12:13–14 establishes the controlling pattern:

“When I see the blood, I will pass over you… This day shall be for you a memorial.”

The blood does not inform God nor persuade him emotionally; it functions as a covenantal sign. God’s seeing triggers his saving action. The memorial feast does not reenact deliverance but places each generation within its continuing efficacy.

Crucially, this saving event:

• precedes the giving of the Law,
• is grounded entirely in divine promise,
• demands loyalty and trust rather than legal obedience.

The structure is grace-first, obedience-following—a point foundational to later Eucharistic theology.

2. Memorial as Participation Rather Than Repetition

The annual Passover feast functions simultaneously as:

• remembrance of what God did,

• participation in what God continues to give, and
• communal incorporation into covenant identity.

This logic explains how Israel can say, liturgically, “we were brought out of Egypt” without historical confusion. The event is once-for-all; the participation is ongoing.

Thus, memorial in Scripture is:

• effective without being repetitive,
• real without being metaphysically speculative,
• communal rather than merely individual.

This provides the grammatical framework for understanding the Eucharist.

3. The Eucharist Instituted as Memorial

Jesus institutes the Eucharist explicitly within a Passover setting, commanding:

“Do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of me.”

Within a Jewish context, anamnesis naturally evokes ( zikkaron). It signals not mental recall but liturgical actualisation. Jesus does not command the repetition of sacrifice; he commands the perpetual memorialisation of a redemptive event yet to be completed.

What is new is not memorial logic, but the identity of the event being memorialised: the self-giving of Christ as the climactic covenantal act.

Thus:

• the Cross is once-for-all,
• the Eucharist is ongoing participation,
• presence is covenantal, not mechanical.

4. Real Presence as Covenantal Presence

Within this framework, Real Presence is not the localisation of Christ’s body as an object, but his faithful presence as covenant Lord.

The bread and wine function as:

• visible words of divine promise,
• appointed signs God has bound himself to honour,
• sacramental means through which believers “feed on Christ by faith.”

As in Exodus 12:

• the worshipper sees and receives the sign in faith,
• God sees the sign and acts according to his promise.

Presence, therefore, is relational and promissory, not metaphysically self-justifying.

5. Alignment with Early Patristic Theology

What is striking is how closely this memorial-participatory account aligns with early Christian teaching—long before medieval sacramental metaphysics.

5.1 

In First Apology 66, Justin writes:

“We do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but… the food which has been eucharisted by the word of prayer from him… is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Justin insists on Real Presence, but he explains it through prayer, thanksgiving, and transformation of use, not substance analysis. The emphasis is covenantal and doxological.

5.2 

Irenaeus explicitly frames the Eucharist within covenant renewal:

“The bread, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.”
(Against Heresies IV.18.5)

For Irenaeus, the Eucharist is an act of covenant renewal because, through the Church’s invocation of covenant promise, God faithfully joins earthly signs to heavenly realities, re-integrating the worshipping community into Christ’s reconciling work without repeating the sacrifice or explaining the mystery in speculative terms.

5.3 

Cyril emphasises participation rather than explanation:

“Under the form of bread, you receive the Body of Christ; under the form of wine, the Blood of Christ… so that you may become of one body and blood with him.”
(Mystagogical Catecheses 4)

Presence here is unitive and participatory, not mechanistic.

5.4 

Augustine famously resists crude realism:

“Believe, and you have eaten.”
(Sermon 272)

Yet he does not deny Real Presence; he interprets it within faith, sign, and participation:

“If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.”

This fits precisely with a memorial theology that is effective but covenantal.

6. Memorial, Sacrifice, and the Cross

The Fathers consistently hold together:

• the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ,
• the Eucharist as sacrificial memorial,
• participation without repetition.

The Eucharist shows forth the Lord’s death (1 Cor 11:26); it does not re-enact it. Sacrifice is present as representation and thanksgiving, not limited to penal categories.

This explains why patristic Eucharistic theology sits uneasily with some reductionist forms of Penal Substitutionary Atonement: the Fathers’ focus on the language of covenant, victory, participation, and healing.

7. Conclusion

When properly framed within biblical memorial theology, the Eucharist emerges as:

• a covenantal memorial,
• a real participation in Christ,
• a means of grace grounded in divine promise.

This theology:

• honouring the once-for-all nature of the Cross,
• affirming Real Presence without metaphysical coercion,
• stands squarely within early patristic teaching,
• remains intelligible within Jewish sacramental logic—even where Jewish theology ultimately demurs.

This is not a novel or compromise position. It is, quite simply, the deep sacramental grammar of Scripture and the early Church rediscovered.

Select References

• Justin Martyr, First Apology
• Irenaeus, Against Heresies
• Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses
• Augustine, Sermons
• Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion
• Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist
• Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History

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.

Covenant Memorial

A Fresh Perspective on Real Prescence

Download PDF Version

A proposal that is biblical in grammar (Passover–memorial), patristically compatible (presence as participation), Reformationally intelligible (promise-centred), and Anabaptist-sensitive (discipleship/communal integrity).

Thesis

Covenantal Real Presence: In the Eucharist, the risen Christ is really present to his covenant people as covenant Lord—present to give what he promises (communion with himself and the benefits of his once-for-all self-offering), through the Spirit, by means of the appointed signs, as they are received in faith within a reconciled, obedient community.

This is “Real Presence” because Christ truly gives himself; it is “covenantal” because presence is promissory, relational, and enacted, not mechanically produced or metaphysically localised.

1. Biblical foundations: memorial as enacted covenant (zikkaron /
anamnesis)

1. Passover (Exod 12:13–14) shows memorial as an enacted sign that God “sees” and to which God binds saving action.
2. Covenant remembrance is divine action (Gen 9:16; Exod 2:24).
3. “Do this in remembrance of me” should be heard within that memorial world: not “think about me,” but “keep covenant with me through this appointed enactment.”
4. Paul’s realism: participation (koinonia) in body and blood (1 Cor 10:16–17) and the moral danger of eating “unworthily” (1 Cor 11) only make full sense if something more than mental recollection is occurring.

So, the Eucharist is memorial that participates in the once-for-all event without repeating it.

2. The nature of presence: personal, covenantal, pneumatic

Covenantal Real Presence specifies three things:

• personal: Christ is present as a living subject who acts, not as a static object to be analysed,
• covenantal: Christ is present in the mode of promise—“I am with you,” “given for you,” “for the forgiveness of sins”—a presence inseparable from his pledged self-giving
• pneumatic: the Spirit is the mode of communion; the Spirit does not replace Christ but unites believers to the risen Christ.

This resonates strongly with Calvin’s best instincts (real feeding, Spirit-mediated), while avoiding collapsing “spiritual” into “imaginary”.

3. The signs: neither empty symbols nor automatic mechanisms

In this proposal, bread and wine are:

• appointed covenant signs (visible words),
• effective means precisely because God has freely bound himself to act through them,
• not magical (no ex opere operato automatism),
• not merely illustrative (they truly mediate communion because Christ promises to meet his people there).

This is close to patristic “two realities” language (earthly and heavenly) without requiring later metaphysical definitions.

4. The sacrifice question: “memorial sacrifice” without repetition

Covenantal Real Presence speaks of “sacrifice” in a controlled way:

• the cross is once-for-all (no repetition, no re-immolation),
• the Eucharist is sacrificial memorial in the sense of covenantal representation: the church is brought into living contact with the benefits of the definitive sacrifice and responds with thanksgiving, self-offering, and proclamation,
• the Eucharist is therefore an access-meal and a covenant-renewal meal, not a second atonement.

This framing integrates naturally with Hebrews’ finality and with the biblical memorial pattern.

5. Ecclesial conditions: presence given to a people, not to isolated consumers

Here Anabaptist instincts become a strength rather than a liability:

• the Eucharist presupposes the one body (1 Cor 10:17),
• reconciliation is not optional decoration but part of the sacrament’s truth,
• the church must catechise and shepherd participation because the Supper is church-defining.

This does not make obedience the cause of presence, but it does treat obedience as the covenantal form of receiving presence truthfully.

6. Pastoral and liturgical implications

A church practicing Covenant Real Presence (or simply, Covenant Presence) will tend to:

• celebrate Communion more frequently (because it is constitutive, not occasional),
• teach it as promise + participation, not “moment of reflection”,
• include intentional space for reconciliation (silence, confession, peace, restitution where needed),
• explicitly connect the meal to mission and embodied discipleship,
• avoid language that implies repeated sacrifice or bare symbolism.

7. How this proposal negotiates the classic poles

• Against Zwinglian thin memorial: remembrance is enacted participation; Christ truly gives himself.
• Against crude localism / mechanistic presence: presence is covenantal and pneumatic, not spatialised.
• Against re-sacrifice: once-for-all finality is safeguarded; “sacrifice” language is memorial/representational.
• Against PSA reductionism: the Supper is not mere penalty-rehearsal but communion, proclamation, and covenant renewal—while affirming the gravity of sin and the necessity of the cross. It is the celebration of forensic standing in the context of renewed covenant participation in all that the cross has achieved.

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.

Grace and Forgiveness

Meditations on Psalm 51

This psalm doesn’t offer self-repair.
It offers mercy without denial — and truth without despair.

There are few biblical texts as familiar — and as easily misunderstood — as Psalm 51.
Prayed for centuries in private confession and public worship, its words can become so well known that they are no longer truly heard. Yet Psalm 51 was not written as a devotional comfort piece. It emerged from moral collapse, prophetic confrontation, chastening that was not bypassed, and mercy that proved strong enough to restore without denial.

Grace and Forgiveness: Meditations on Psalm 51 is a slow, serious listening to this
ancient prayer. Written with restraint and theological clarity, the book allows Psalm 51 to speak in its own voice — without being softened, hurried, or reshaped to fit modern expectations.

Rather than treating repentance sentimentally or forgiveness superficially, this book traces the psalm’s full moral and spiritual logic:

• forgiveness grounded in God’s righteous mercy
• discipline understood as fatherly care, not condemnation
• restoration that unfolds truthfully, not triumphantly
• usefulness recovered without illusion or entitlement

More than a symbol

Many evangelical churches today see the Lord’s Supper as just a symbolic act. The bread and wine help us remember what Jesus did on the cross, following his words: “Do this in remembrance of me.” This view, known as Memorialism, became popular during the Reformation in Switzerland — through leaders like Zwingli and Bullinger. They rejected the idea that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Orthodox churches believe in the Real Presence—that Christ is physically present in the Lord’s Supper. Even if they explain it differently, they all believe that Christ is actually present in the bread and wine.

John Calvin also believed in the Real Presence but offered a different way of explaining it. He didn’t think the bread and wine physically changed, but he did believe Christ is spiritually present when we receive them with faith. According to him, the experience is real and meaningful—not just a memory exercise. Believers feed on the body and blood of Christ as they are spiritually united with Jesus’ physical presence in heaven.

Although Memorialism is common in many churches today, some leaders are starting to question whether it’s enough. They’re asking, “Is the Lord’s Supper just about remembering, or is something more happening?”

Living Memorial

Jesus introduced the Lord’s Supper during the Jewish Passover—a meal that was all about remembering how God saved his people from Egypt. So when Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” it linked Israel with the Exodus and their living identity as the people of God. The Passover Feast was more than an act of remembrance. It pointed to the on-going activity of God.

The bread and wine point back to Jesus’ sacrifice, but they also carry forward his promises. This isn’t just about us remembering him—it’s also about trusting that God remembers us and responds when we approach him in faith.

The Lord’s Supper isn’t just a symbolic reminder. It’s a spiritual event. When we take part sincerely, it becomes a means by which God fulfils his promises and confirms his grace in our lives.

Spiritual Experience

The Lord’s Supper is a multi-layered spiritual experience. It works simultaneously in three
directions:

1. Inward, it helps us focus our hearts on Jesus. As we remember his sacrifice, the Holy
   Spirit draws us closer to God. We feel his love and peace. It builds our faith and trust
   in him.
2. Outward, it strengthens our connection with other believers. We’re reminded that
   we’re one family, united in Christ. As we share in the meal, we grow in love and
   fellowship.
3. Upward, we commune with God. It’s not just us reaching for him—he also draws
   near to us. As we worship and give thanks, he blesses us through the bread and wine,
   bringing us more deeply into all that is represented on the Table.

So yes, we remember Christ—but God is also doing something. The Lord’s Supper is a
powerful moment where heaven touches earth. It’s not just symbolic—it’s spiritual,
relational, and deeply real.

One of the greatest barriers to the revival of the Church in Britain, Europe and other parts of the world today is the wrong concept of ‘church’ held by many. In Parts Three and Four of this book, we examined the meaning of two important words the New Testament uses to describe the Church. The Bible teaching is clear, but erroneous ideas are so deeply embedded in our minds, and so much a part of our traditional experience of church, that we find it very difficult to understand and apply this teaching. Jesus’ words about our traditions emptying God’s Word of its power in Matthew 15:1-10, are never more relevant than when we think about church today. Through our wrong concepts of church, we limit our effectiveness and hinder our ability to build strong and effective churches today.

Many people refer to such concepts as ‘local church,’ ‘national church’ or ‘denominational church,’ but, as we saw in Part Three, rarely do these concepts carry the true biblical meaning of ‘church.’

Sword of the Spirit Series: Glory in the Church by Colin Dye

We have seen that the New Testament uses the word ‘church’ in three main ways:

To describe all believers both on earth and in heaven – the universal Church
To describe the household church – the community church
To refer to believers of a specific city or locality – the city church.

Each of these expressions of church is important and must have a place in our thinking and practice today. The universal Church is a reminder that there is only one true Church and Body of Christ, which consists of all believers of all history. This will only be fully manifested when all God’s people will be gathered together in heaven. It is a reminder that we all belong to each other and to the Lord.

The community church is witnessed to in Scripture in only a handful of verses such as Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19 & Philemon 2, and yet, it is an extremely important part of our understanding and expression of church. The household in the society of New Testament times was not the same as the typical nuclear family household of today. It was a thriving community, almost a village in itself. It is clear from this that God intends church to operate fully at every level of society penetrating into even the smallest of communities.

This community understanding of church has some obvious advantages. Close-knit relationships and a sense of belonging flourish through this emphasis on local, people group communities. Both rural villages and urban communities, found in their specific locality within large cities, must have credible expressions of church at their level of community.

What we describe as ‘local churches’ today resembles more closely these community churches (household churches) of the New Testament. It is where we are strong today. But, our weakness lies in seeking to express everything that the Bible says about church through these community-style churches. The community church without the New Testament expression of the city church is but a fragmented expression of what the Bible reveals about church. As we described in Part Three, the city church of the New Testament consisted of many of these localised, community churches expressing themselves as the church of that city or area.

THE MYTH OF INDEPENDENCE

We also saw in Part Three that what we commonly call a ‘local church’ today is inconsistent with the revelation of the New Testament. The local churches of the New Testament (such as the churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth and Antioch) were expressions of the body of Christ in a city or area. They were not single, independent congregations but more like a network of congregations functioning interdependently as one church. This is the principle underlying the concept of church networks. You cannot have an independent local congregation any more than you can have an independent hand or foot. Together, they form one body.

The choice in the New Testament is never between local congregations or city-wide churches, between small or large – but all these things should be working together with each element in its proper place. This is the only way we can have a real spiritual impact on our towns, cities and nations.

What most people speak of a ‘local church’ today, they have in mind a single congregation with a pastor, a leadership team, a building to meet in, and a local area to claim as its own. But, this leads to a serious departure from the New Testament when people see this traditional model of the ‘local church’ as the only real and legitimate expression of church today. Consequently, they build small, isolated and narrow-focussed congregations claiming to be the body of Christ in their area. They pay little or no attention to their brothers and sisters in other ‘local churches’ except for a few pulpit courtesies, some token fraternal activities and perhaps also their denominational affiliation. Apart from these things, they see themselves as ‘independent churches’ holding a direct relationship with the government of Christ and claiming full sovereignty as ‘local churches’. Few attitudes can be fracturing the body of Christ more than this. Real unity will only be seen when all the congregations of a town or city see themselves as part of the same body of Christ.

THE NETWORK CHURCH

The network church concept rejects the narrow, inward-looking tendency of so many small so-called ‘local churches’ we see today with their ‘village mentality’. These churches tend to be small, parochial and inwardly focussed. Network churches, on the other hand, will seek to grow to become many thousands of people, with a city-wide and expansive mentality and will be characterised by an outward focus.

Local churches today tend to be mono-cultural, but the network church will incorporate all the various cultural, racial, language and people groupings often found in today’s society and express these through a multicultural approach to church.

The village-minded church is usually strong on fellowship and pastoral care and is often led by a one or (at the most) a two-fold ministry – that of the pastor-teacher. But, the network church upholds the five-fold ministry seeing the importance of the apostolic and prophetic in the government of the church.

The village-minded church sees itself as an independent whole rather than one part of the whole, needing to be integrated into the bigger picture of the network church. On the other hand, the network church consists of interdependent parts working together in connection with the whole. The network church philosophy is an inclusive and expansive approach to church which seeks to recognise all expressions of the Body of Christ in the city or locality.

THE MEGA CHURCH

From about the 1980’s, beginning in North America, a new form of church began to be seen which was, in part, a reaction against the ‘local, village church’ approach. The ‘mega church’ phenomenon took America by storm as churches of many thousands began to be seen in one major city after another.

But these churches didn’t really express church in the fullness of the New Testament revelation. The difference was simply in the size and influence of the particular church in question. It still was about ‘your church’ and ‘my church’ but the difference was simply that mega churches were bigger than most local, village-type churches. The mega churches of the 1980’s grew big through ‘church growth’ principles rooted more in sociology than genuine spirituality. Characteristically, they were headed up by high-powered, charismatic leaders who had great management skills and were backed by tightly-controlled leadership teams – often consisting of family members. The philosophy was ‘big is beautiful’ and all that seemed to matter was the growth of their church. Everything was done with the single aim of furthering this goal. It was a ‘no-holds-barred’ approach to church growth.

The fact that at the end of the 1980’s there were no more Christians in the USA than at the beginning, showed that the mega church phenomenon was more successful in drawing from the pool of existing believers than it was about the real work of Christ: making, maturing and mobilising new disciples for the Master.

Now in the 21st Century, we must be concerned not just to see churches grow, but also to ensure that every Christian is fully trained, equipped and mobilised. We have witnessed in recent decades the phenomenon of fast-growing churches building their numbers by competing with other churches through high-profile speakers, popular sermon topics and famous Christian ‘entertainers’. But our concern should be for genuine New Testament Christianity, which has much more to do with high-cost discipleship than the promotion of crowd-pulling programmes or personalities. The network church concept is best described as building ‘meta churches’ and not the traditional mega church of recent years.

THE META CHURCH

A ‘meta church’ is also a church of many thousands but shaped by a different philosophy of church from the mega church we have been describing. A meta church has an integrated approach to church which expresses itself through a network of many cells, congregations and ministries which enables the whole body to function fully.

In the same way we compared and contrasted the village church and the network church approaches, we can also highlight the differences between the mega church and meta church. The mega church usually has a mono-structural organisation, with all departments and ministries of the church relating directly to the senior leader through line managers. The meta church, on the other hand, is a network structure of churches, cells and ministries and has a releasing rather than a regulating approach to leadership. Consequently it has a more open and less managerial style of church government.

Mega churches see mobilisation consisting of members serving the programme of the church, but meta churches see service as the programme of the church. The emphasis of a mega church is on the ‘big building’ where everything of real significance takes place. The meta church, however, emphasises the need for the members to be the church wherever they are and buildings are merely a means to that end.

Meta churches put people before programmes and this is most evident in the cells. The cells are not just part of the programme of the church, but they are where the members are trained, equipped and released for the work of the church. The meta church upholds an every member ministry and sees the leadership’s role as primarily to equip the saints for the work of the ministry – making, maturing and mobilising disciples, according to Matthew’s Gospel chapter 28.

Meta churches understand mobilisation to be preparing God’s people for mission. The meta church approach is a discipleship approach to church and is based on servanthood. Mega church strategies can at times foster a competitive consumer approach to Christianity. Following the motto, ‘bigger is better’, mega churches can often appear as if their ultimate goal is merely to grow bigger rather than to produce disciples and to release people into the ministry of Christ.

Mega churches are usually anti-denominational with very few of them working within traditional denominational structures. Their sheer size can breed a spirit of superiority and independence. But those involved in meta churches understand the principle of networking and can easily extend that principle in order to embrace national and international networks.

Network churches hold the balance between central direction and local initiative. They enjoy the fact that they are both big and yet honeycombed into a myriad of different components – cells, congregations and ministries – through which people can be pastored, nurtured and mobilised within the context of a sense of real belonging but, at the same time, stand with the thousands in the great convocations and celebrations in the mass meetings. However, most important of all, network churches prize and value every individual member who is not merely a ‘pew-warmer’ or ‘sermon-fodder’, but a person with powerful potential. Network churches see their role as bringing out that potential and releasing it in the power of Christ to see his Great Commission fulfilled.

All these differences – between village-type churches and city churches, and between mega churches and meta churches – have helped us understand how the Lord wants churches to organise themselves and to grow as credible witnesses to Christ. This form of church expression could become an effective common model for church in the 21st Century.

THE STRENGTH OF NETWORKING
Christians are surely stronger when they stand and work together. This means being tolerant of the different doctrinal emphases found outside their own particular group as well as providing a loving defence of the essential fundamental doctrines of the faith found in the Bible. There can be no real unity based on compromising these foundational truths. We deal with this principle in more detail in Part Thirteen in this book.

The promise of Psalm 133 is given to brothers dwelling together in unity and we are told that this is where ‘the Lord commands the blessing.’ This promise should encourage every single Christian church, leader and ministry to consider the importance of networking. God never intended that we should ‘go it alone’ or that we should faction ourselves off from the rest of the body of Christ. Church networks are an important way of overcoming the destructive independent tendencies that lie at the root of fallen sinful nature. Separatist attitudes should never be allowed to enter the life of the Church. Our task is too urgent and the world is too lost. We simply must demonstrate to the nations the reality of a united body of Christ present and active in our locality, our nation and across the nations of the world.

NETWORK CHURCHES TODAY
In applying the New Testament networking principle, we must be clear that it is not possible to turn the clock back to New Testament times. 2,000 years of Church history have left us with more than 6,000 denominations, with many other independent church groups, streams and traditions in existence today. But if Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17 is to be answered, each church group must see themselves as part of the greater whole – members of Christ’s body and not independent units separated from other church groups.

One way of doing this is through networking. A network is a real and tangible expression of interdependence and interconnectedness. Churches can network locally and nationally and can also be part of denominational and inter-denominational networks. At the heart of the network philosophy lie the principles of humility and acceptance. That is, the willingness to see that ‘our group’ is not the totality of the body of Christ on earth, and that we are all inter-connected parts of the greater whole. In short, we need each other. As John puts it in 1 John 1:3, ‘Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.’ This universal fellowship must necessarily involve partnership in the common vision to make Christ known to the world. Networks can operate both formally and informally, and can be both non-governmental and governmental in structure.

Non-governmental networks include both informal and formal network structures which honour the identity and integrity of local churches, while providing the framework for wider consultation, planning, action and vision.

Network churches are governmental structures and normally seek to develop all the characteristics of a network church within a city or a geographical region. It is interesting to note that the New Testament never uses the word ‘church’ in a national or international context. While national and international networks may be helpful in giving teaching, encouragement and apostolic direction to local churches, they should never become their governing authority. The network church, however, will have a governmental structure within its own city or region. In a network church:

The parts will be formally constituted to form an expression of a city or a regional church operating according to the network principle

They will usually be linked to apostolic leadership which gives shape and direction to the whole
The leadership will be drawn from each constituent part incorporating the five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11
They will embrace expressions of ekklesia at every level, from the twos and threes of companionship groups, to the convocation gatherings of the whole network church

The network church will itself form links with other groups and churches both in their area and beyond, expressing their full unity in Christ.

Building church networks today according to the meta church model is as desirable as it is necessary. However, we must never underestimate the challenge and the cost involved in following this path. For the most part, this involves laying aside completely the traditional models of church which are being followed without question in so many places today. The following principles serve as a summary of the principles of network churches and present the challenge of the Holy Spirit to the churches of today:

Absolute submission to Christ as Head of the Church and the willingness to function, as members of his body, solely according to his direction

Resisting the traditional church leadership model of ‘pastor-teacher’ and accepting the five-fold ministry in the leadership and direction of the whole network church

Rejecting the ministry as a profession or a career for some who do the work of Christ on behalf of the members of his body

Accepting the principle that every member is a worker and providing the structure in which this principle can flourish

Seeing the Church as more than Sunday services but as an on-going, day-by-day permanent relationship expressed in seven-day-a-week service to the Master in the place, profession and situation in life he has placed you

Dying to the egoism of personal kingdom-building and laying your gifts at the feet of the Master in the real work of the kingdom of God, which is making, maturing and mobilising disciples

Building church through the cells as the miniature engine-rooms of the body of Christ

Working in a spirit of interconnectedness and renouncing all aspects of independence in relation to membership and service in the body of Christ.

Only as we all take up these principles and work together in partnership with the Holy Spirit will we see the kind of effective Church emerge on the earth in advance of the Second Coming of Christ which we describe in the next chapter, the final Part of this book.

Pastor John Harris of Orlando, Florida, was welcomed into the gates of heaven on January 31, 2025, surrounded by his family and close friends. He was 82.

A proud Welshman, he was born to Richard and Dulcie Harris on March 5, 1942, and was raised in Newbridge, Wales alongside his sisters Rhyanon and Anita. He attended Newbridge School before going to work in the coal mines when he graduated at age 15. He served in the Royal Air Force from 1958 to 1964, during which time he met the love of his life, Dawn Mildred Harris (nee Shaw), to whom he was married for 60 years.

He gave his life to Christ at the age of 16 and was called to ministry in his late 20s, choosing to leave a successful career in insurance to answer God’s calling on his life. John spent the next decade ministering as a pastor at Kensington Temple and working with Life For the World Trust, a recovery ministry housed in a 50-room 17th century estate. He eventually served as the head of Pye Barn Trust, also a drug rehabilitation ministry, where Dawn served by his side.

In the early 1980s John started working with Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship and moved back to Portsmouth in the south of England, where he also served on staff at a local church. In 1984, he and his dear friend Terry Wiseman founded Staffwise to connect contractors with manufacturers, and in 1988 they brought Staffwise USA to Orlando, where he would find his second home.

He became actively involved in the ministry at First Baptist Church Orlando and would go on to join the staff as men’s minister in the early 1990s. He would later serve Downtown Baptist Church alongside his friend Jim Henry as associate pastor, overseeing senior adults and pastoral care, and served a similar role in the last years of his life at First Baptist Church Winter Garden. Throughout all his years of ministry, Dawn was his faithful partner and biggest supporter.

John was a man of immense faith, and he was deeply committed to the ministry of prayer. He remained involved in various ministries throughout his life, including Bridges International, a drug treatment program, and New Missions, which works to plant churches and schools in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. He went on numerous mission trips throughout his life, including to Kenya and the Philippines.

An avid golfer, he enjoyed many years as a member at the Bay Hill Club. He and Dawn were proud to become American citizens in 2009. He loved traveling Europe and trips to his cabin in Georgia, fine food, and being with his friends and family. Of all his many accomplishments, nothing made him prouder than his role as a husband, father, and grandfather.

John is preceded in death by his parents and his sister, Rhyanon. He is survived by his wife, Dawn; his children, Rebecca (Simon) Wallis and Matthew Harris; his grandchildren, Jonathan, Olivia, Isabella, and Emma; and his sister, Anita (Peter) Blanchett. 

TRIBUTE FROM COLIN DYE

Former Senior Minister Kensington Temple, Notting Hill, London, UK (1991-2021).

Former staff member The Chase, Drug Rehabilitation Centre, Clapham, London, UK (1977 – 1979).

It is hard to overstate the impact that Richard John Harris and his wife Dawn have had on my life. Known to us simply as John Harris he was a true Barnabas, a consoler and encourager, a man of genuine compassion and strength. He was Welsh (never to be confused with an Englishman) and he carried the typical passion of the Welsh into everything he did, not the least, passion for the Welsh national rugby team! 

John and Dawn gave me my first ministry position as a team member in The Chase, a Christian Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Ministry. I was fresh out of Theological College, naïve and wet behind the ears, with no ministry experience to speak of, but John took a chance on me. Together, we saw scores of young people find Christ as Saviour and permanently delivered from drug and alcohol addictions and other social problems.

While working with John and Dawn, I met and married my wife Amanda. They took charge of our wedding and even gave us a place to stay for our honeymoon. It is wonderful to have people believe in you and help you make a start in life, in marriage and in ministry. John was just that kind of person.

My abiding memories of John will be his open, generous and large-hearted approach to people in desperate need. Whether it be the homeless, the addicted or those in prison. But he was no man’s fool. He was firm, even adamant when necessary, and yet was always fair, knowing when to be gentle. In whatever role he was fulfilling at heart he was a pastor. Gifted with people, he had top grade communication skills and a keen insight into the human condition. He was outstanding in applying practical wisdom to people with problems, and they came from far and wide to seek his advice and counsel.

Above all, John was a lover of Christ and his gospel. He never lost an opportunity to share God’s love with those he met. We will miss him greatly. A dear colleague, trusted friend and advisor. Meeting him and Dawn recently in London, together with my wife Amanda, John was as interested as ever in what we were now doing for the Lord, offering his on-going support and encouragement.

Our deepest condolences of course go to Dawn, to Rebecca and to Matthew and to all John’s friends and family. May the peace and presence of Jesus be with us all.

Colin and Amanda Dye

London, February 2025

Course Resources

• Download Lecture Notes 1 – 6
• Watch Lectures 1 – 3