The Eucharist Debate: Zwingli’s Memorial View—Is Communion Only a Symbol?

Part 2 – The Rise of the Symbolic View of the Lord’s Supper

The first major interpretive tradition, the Memorial view, often associated with Ulrich Zwingli, proposes that the Eucharist is a symbolic act of remembrance and proclamation. In this view, the bread and wine remain unchanged, serving as visual aids that point to the sacrifice of Christ, which occurred once for all on the cross. The primary purpose of the Lord’s Supper is not to make Christ’s presence anew but to call to mind his past work and to foster a collective act of grateful remembrance.

Origin and Evolution

The Memorial view is most famously associated with the Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), who broke from the Roman Catholic Church and, in 1525, introduced a new communion liturgy that replaced the Mass.[1] Zwingli argued that the Eucharist is a symbolic ritual reenactment of the Last Supper, patterned after the Passover meal of the Old Testament. He reasoned that Christ’s body, being in heaven, cannot be physically present on earth, and that the “is” in “This is my body” should be understood figuratively as “this signifies my body.” Over time, this view has evolved and persisted, particularly within Baptist and Anabaptist traditions, where the Lord’s Supper is often referred to as an “ordinance” rather than a “sacrament.”[2] In the modern period, theologian Karl Barth similarly espoused a symbolic view, emphasizing that the sacrament communicates God’s promises without metaphysically altering the elements.

Compelling Biblical Passages

Proponents of the Memorial view point to several key scriptures. The most prominent is the command of Jesus at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Some scholars translate this phrase as, “Do this so that you will remember me,” concluding that the imperative was spoken to remind the disciples of the significance of Jesus’ death.[3] This reinforces the Eucharist as a commemorative ceremony. Similarly, the apostle Paul writes, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). For memorialists, this confirms the Eucharist as a public proclamation of the Gospel, not a repetition of the sacrifice. One of the more compelling passages is found in Hebrews 9:25–28, which states that Christ has entered heaven itself, not “to offer himself repeatedly,” and that he “has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This once-for-all nature of Christ’s sacrifice supports the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial, or at the very least not a real presence, because any notion of repeating the sacrifice would contradict the finality of the cross.

Contradictory Passages

However, several passages challenge the Memorial view. The Gospel of John’s Bread of Life discourse, where Jesus declares, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53), is one of them. Interpreters often point to this passage to demonstrate that partaking in the Eucharist represents something more than simply remembering the Lord's death.[4] 

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” The Greek word koinonia (participation) suggests a deeper, real sharing in the body and blood of the Lord, not just a mental recollection. Finally, 1 Corinthians 11:27 warns that those who partake unworthily are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Critics of memorialism argue that one cannot be guilty of a mere symbol, implying a real, tangible presence. The institution narratives across Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and Paul’s earliest account (1 Cor 11:24-25) all record Jesus saying, “This is my body” and “This is my blood of the covenant.” The consistent, unqualified “is” appears in every witness. Nowhere does Jesus say, “This signifies.” Given the Jewish context, where blood meant life (Lev 17:11) and covenants required actual blood (Exod 24:8), his words resist a purely symbolic reading.

Upcoming Articles

In the next article, we will explore the view that Zwingli refuted, often referred to as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That article will examine the positions of consubstantiation and transubstantiation in the consecrated elements. Following that, a final article will address the Spiritual Presence view, which holds that while the bread and wine remain physically unchanged, believers are truly lifted by the Holy Spirit to commune with Christ.

Sources

[1] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 60–61.

[2] "Lord's Supper" https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Lord%27s_Supper.

[3] Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. 1st American ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

A free version of this text exists through: https://www.dirzon.com/Doc/Reader?target=telegram%3AI.%20Howard%20Marshall%20-%20The%20Gospel%20of%20Luke%20(NIGTC).pdf (935-938).

[4] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Books 6-12, trans. Fabian R. Larcher, and James A. Weisheipl. (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2010), 45-51.

The Eucharist Debate: Christianity's Most Controversial Sacrament

Dan Field is a devoted husband to his wife, Karis, and father to his son, Toryn. He is currently pursuing an M.A. in Biblical Studies at Capital Seminary, gaining a more intimate understanding of the Lord and His Word. Dan is passionate about equipping his brothers and sisters in Christ, preaching the kingdom, and being bold in the dark and wicked places of the world. 

For more about our ministry, visit our About Page: https://www.thatyoumayknowhim.com/about