welcome brother @SincereSeeker
The Greek “anamnesis” (from anamimnēskō, to recall/cause to remember) isn’t passive recollection but a covenantal, liturgical act. In the Septuagint (LXX), “anamnesis” describes sacrifices that actively invoke God’s presence and covenant (Leviticus 24:7, Numbers 10:10). For example, Numbers 10:10 uses “anamnesis” for offerings “made by fire” to be a “memorial before your God.” This is Godward, not just human memory, aligning with the Passover’s eaten lamb (Exodus 12:8–14), which is called a “memorial” (LXX: mnēmosunon) yet requires real participation. Paul’s “proclaim the Lord’s death” (1 Corinthians 11:26) uses “katangellō” (to declare publicly), but this proclamation is tied to “do this in my remembrance” (11:24–25), suggesting the act itself makes Christ’s sacrifice present. The Eucharist isn’t a stage play but a participation in the eternal reality of Calvary, as Hebrews 9:24–26 shows Christ offering Himself in the heavenly sanctuary “once for all” yet eternally.
Hebrews 10:14: You cite “by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” to argue the cross’s effect is eternal, needing no liturgical re-presentation. But this supports the Catholic/Orthodox view: Christ’s sacrifice is eternal, not confined to A.D. 33. Hebrews 7:25 says He “always lives to make intercession,” and 9:24 places Him in the heavenly temple. The Eucharist, per Malachi 1:11’s “pure offering” in every place, is the Church’s entry into this eternal sacrifice, not a new one. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1366) clarifies: “It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself.” Memorialism reduces “anamnesis” to mental recall, missing its sacrificial, covenantal weight in Scripture.
In 1 Corinthians 11:23–29, Paul’s focus is the Lord’s Supper: “This is my body” (11:24, touto estin to sōma mou) uses the same “sōma” as in “discerning the body” (11:29, diakrinōn to sōma). The parallel in 1 Corinthians 10:16—“The bread that we break, is it not a participation [koinōnia] in the body [sōma] of Christ?”—explicitly ties “sōma” to the Eucharistic bread. While “sōma” can mean the church (1 Corinthians 12:12–27), the immediate context of 11:23–29 is the Supper’s institution and consequences for unworthy eating, not general community ethics. The phrase “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27, enochos… tou sōmatos kai tou haimatos) uses “enochos” (liable/guilty), a legal term for profaning something sacred (cf. Mark 14:64). This echoes Old Testament judgments for mishandling holy things (e.g., Leviticus 22:9, 2 Samuel 6:6–7). If Paul meant only the church, why mention “blood” separately? The dual reference points to the sacramental elements, as in John 6:55 (“my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”).
You’re right that Paul condemns divisions (11:18–22), but his solution is “examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (11:28). This focuses on the act of eating/drinking, not just social behavior. The judgment for “not discerning the body” (11:29) implies failing to recognize the sacred reality of the elements, not just neglecting the poor. Both sins are linked: despising the church (by division) profanes the Eucharist, which unites the church (10:17, “one bread, one body”). Memorialism separates these, seeing only social sin, but Scripture holds both together.
1 Corinthians 11:30 (“For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died”) follows “eats and drinks judgment on himself” (11:29). The Greek “krima” (judgment) and “enochos” (guilty, 11:27) indicate a divine penalty for sacrilege, not just social sin. This parallels Old Testament precedents: Uzzah’s death for touching the Ark (2 Samuel 6:6–7) or priests’ punishment for mishandling offerings (Leviticus 22:9) wasn’t about the objects’ “magic” but their consecration as God’s presence. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 10:18–21 compares the Eucharist to Israel’s altar and pagan sacrifices, where real participation (koinōnia) occurs. If the Eucharist were merely symbolic, why such severe consequences?
You’re right that God defends His holiness, not that the bread itself “kills.” But Scripture ties this holiness to the elements’ consecration (1 Corinthians 10:16, 11:24). Memorialism’s symbolic view struggles to explain why eating a mere sign incurs divine wrath, whereas the Real Presence aligns with the gravity of profaning Christ Himself.
John 6:51–58 escalates from “phagein” (to eat, general) to “trōgein” (to chew/gnaw, vv. 54–58), a vivid term for physical eating (Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon, p. 1829). The crowd’s scandal (6:60–66) confirms they understood Jesus literally, not as urging faith alone. Verse 63 doesn’t contradict this: “flesh” (sarx) here refers to human understanding, not Christ’s Eucharistic flesh, contrasted with “Spirit” (pneuma) as divine life. Jesus’ words (“spirit and life”) enable faith to receive His real flesh, not negate it. The Bread of Life discourse ties to the Last Supper (John 13–17 omits the institution, as John 6 prefigures it). Raymond Brown’s The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible, vol. 29A, 1966, pp. 272–275) notes “trōgein”’s realism prefigures the Eucharist.
You call the Eucharist “proclamation, participation, fellowship, remembrance”—all true, but Scripture and tradition see these as rooted in Christ’s real presence. 1 Corinthians 10:16’s “koinōnia” (participation) denotes real communion with Christ’s body/blood, not just fellowship among believers. The Fathers, like Justin Martyr (First Apology 66, ca. A.D. 150), affirm this: “The food which is blessed by the prayer of His word… is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” The Eucharist proclaims (1 Corinthians 11:26) because it makes Christ’s sacrifice present, per Malachi 1:11 and Hebrews 9:24.
Peace
Sam
