Now @ILOVECHRIST brother, you might have read this post…
1.The Term Anamnesis and Its Sacrificial Connotation
The claim that anamnesis (eis tēn anamnēsin mou, “in remembrance of me.”) denotes only a mental recollection oversimplifies the semantic range. @ILOVECHRIST brother, see, in Hellenistic Greek and the LXX, anamnesis often caries a cultic, sacrificial sense, not merely a cognitive recall. A strong evidence is:
Leviticus 24:7 (LXX)
Anamnesis describes the memorial offering of frankincense on the bread of the Presence, which is a ritual act making God’s covenantal action present, not just remembered. Similarly, in Numbers 10:10, anamnesis refers to trumpet blasts, as a “remembrance before your God” effecting divine favour.
Joachim Jeremias, in The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (SCM press, 1966, ig pages 237-255) argues than anamnesis in the institution narratives parallels Passover’s ritual re-presentation, where participants enter the salvific event. Orthodox theology, as articulated by Alexander Schmemann (The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, SVS Press, 1988) sees anamnesis as a liturgical act that actualizes Christ’s presence, not a mere mnemonic device.
Reducing anamnesis to mental recollection ignores its dynamic, performative role in Jewish and Christian liturgy, where words effect reality.
2.Sōma and Haima as Ontological Realities
The assertion that sōma(body) and haima(blood) are purely symbolic referent to Christ’s crucifixion overlooks their concrete usage in Paul. In 1 Cor 10:16, Paul calls the Eucharist “koinonia of the Blood of Christ” and “koinonia of the Body of Christ” using koinonia to denote real participation, not mere fellowship.
In Greek literature, koinonia implies sharing in a tangible reality:
Plato, Gorgias 507e, where it denotes partnership in action
St. John Chrysostom, in Homily 24 on 1 Cor (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 12, ed. Philip Schaff, Hendrickson, 1994) interprets this as participation in Christ’s acutal Body, paralleling altar sacrifices (1 Cor 10:18). The memorialist view’s claim that sōma refers only to the “ekklēsia” (church) or Christ’s cross is strained, as Paul’s syntax in 1 Cor 11:24 (“this is my body”) and 11:29 (“not discerning the body”) lacks qualifiers limiting sōma to metaphor. The absence of particles like hōs (“as”) common in symbolic langauage as in John 10:9, and the parallel with touto estin in Gen 31:26 (LXX, where “are” denotes identity) suggest ontological presence.
For more info go to Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John (I–XII), Yale, 1966) in which we can note that Paul’s language mirrors John 6’s realism, where sōma and haima are inseparable from Christ’s incarnate reality.
3. Judgment and Diakrinō to Sōma
What the memorialist argument does is to tie the judgement in 1 Cor 11:27-30 to ethical failures but this ignores Paul’s explicit link to “not discerning the body” (mē diakrinōn to sōma, v. 29). Diakrinō means to distinguish or judge correctly and here it implies recognizing the Eucharist as Christ’s Body, not merely Church Community.
See the severe consequeunce…tell me what does it parallel to…?
Sickness, death etc arent these judgements for mishandling holy things like Uzzah’s death in 2 Sam 6:6-7 and priests’ accountability in Leviticus 22:9. Nicholas Cabasilas (A Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, SVS Press, 1960) argues that such gravity presupposes a sacred reality, not a symbol. The ethical violations exacebrate the sin by profaning the holy, but the root issues is irrevenrence toward Christ’s presence. A symbolic meal lacks the causal power to incur divine judgment, as mere ethical lapses would not warrant physical death without a desecrated sacred object.
4.John 6 and Trōgein
The memorialist view sidesteps John 6:51-58, where Jesus escalates from pagein (eat, general) to trōgein (gnaw or chew), discussed in prev posts @ILOVECHRIST brother, that this term has visceral, literal connotations in Greek Literature like Homer, IIiad 24.642, Aristophanes . Frogs 962, LSJ Greek-Eng lexicon 9th ed etc. The disciples’ scandal and departure indicate a literal demand, not a metaphorical faith. Theodore Stylianopoulos (The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective, Holy Cross Press, 1997) notes that trōgein aligns with Eucharistic ingestion, fulfilling manna as true sustenance. The memorialist reduction of “eating” to spiritual assent fragments John’s discourse, which ties eternal life to somatic participation.
I would like to end with the typological and Scriptural coherence problem.
The memorialist reading neglects the OT types that represent a real presence. The Passover Lamb is eaten literally, not symbolically, to participate in salvation. Manna is God’s tangible provision, fulfilled in John 6’s “true bread”. Malachi 1:11 “pure offering” is interpreted by both traditions as Eucharist.