Introduction.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians is the oldest biblical writing containing the explanation of the Holy Mass. In chapter 11 St. Paul twice inscribed the words “Do this for My anamnesis.” In traditional translation this means “Do this in memory of Me” or “Do this for the commemoration of Me” as spoken by Christ over the bread and wine (verses 24-25). The essential theme of this article is the interpretation of this injunction.

In the New Testament, four texts clearly contain the Lord Jesus’ words that He spoke over the bread and wine in the Cenacle  [1]. These texts, which are extremely important for the understanding of the liturgy of the Holy Mass, are divided by biblical scholars into two groups  [2]:

(a) 1 Cor 11:23-27 and Luke 22:14-30, where among other words is the phrase τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, which is translated as “Do this for My anamnesis,” and

(b) Matt 26:26-30 and Mark 14:22-25, where this phrase is not present.

The authors of the first group are St. Paul and St. Luke, the companion of Paul in his evangelizing expeditions in the areas of Asia Minor and Greece. They both knew perfectly the language, literature, religion, and the Greek culture; and their texts were primarily directed to the believers of this particular cultural environment. Therefore, one can suppose that the expression pointed out above can be rightly understood only if it is considered within the wider background of the religion, literature, and culture not only of the Jews but also of the Greeks. The issue of the Eucharistic anamnesis has been explored from the Church Fathers to contemporary Biblical scholars with a wide background of ancient culture and literature, including in particular the Jewish and Greek ones  [3].

Because the command “Do this for My anamnesis” is found only in one strand of the eucharistic tradition (1 Cor 11:24-25; Luke 22:19), some biblical scholars assert that “as is seen by comparison with Mark and Matthew, the memorial command is literarily secondary and therefore unlikely to be authentic”  [4]. This author’s annotation is valuable, however it needs significant correction in one point: comparison of the two groups does not imply that the injunction “Do this for My anamnesis” is not authentic, but that it is an important explanation of Jesus’ sentence in the realities of the Greek culture. It must be so, since St. Mark and St. Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a different manner described for their audience the same that St. Paul and St. Luke described for their audience from the Greek culture. It should be also noted that it is the close relationship between the meaning of doing “for the anamnesis” and the explanation contained in 1 Cor 11:26  [5].

The lack of the statement being discussed in the texts of the authors of the second group is valuable information for the interpretation of all four texts: surely this expression does not represent the ability of the liturgy to “make present” the redemptive work of Jesus. “Making present” is given by God as an attribute of the Passover rite, which is the rite on which Jesus instituted the Eucharist as the Passover of the New Covenant. The first two points of this article are devoted to proving this characteristic of Passover and the Eucharist. In the first one, the very important biblical typological parallel between the exodus of Moses and Israel and the exodus of Jesus and the Church is shown. This parallel sets the close relationship between Passover (i.e. the liturgy making present the exodus of the Old Covenant) and the Eucharist (i.e. the liturgy making present the exodus of the New Covenant).

After proof of the existence of the fundamental relationship between Passover and the Eucharist, one will be able to answer the question: What does it mean “to do it for the anamnesis”? The relationship between Jesus’ injunction and the correctly understood explanation of it contained  [6] in St. Paul’s 1 Cor 11:26 will show the depth of the liturgical “making present.”

1. The biblical typological relation between the exodus of Moses and of Israel and the exodus of Jesus and of the Church.

At His Last Supper, Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant in His Blood. It is an extremely important event which took place on the night directly before the dramatic time of His redemptive Passion. The Israelites’ exodus from Egypt and the power of the Pharaoh was preceded by the feast of the lamb, which was the Passover celebrated in the night by the Israelites in honor of God. Similarly, Jesus’ exodus from the world under the power of the devil (cf. Luke 4:6; 2 Tim 2:26) was preceded by the feast of the new Passover, which was celebrated in the night with the apostles as representatives of a new community – the Church.

The exodus from Egypt is shown by the Book of Exodus as a battle in which God won a great victory over the Pharaoh (cf. Exod 15:1-21). God, responding to the obedience of the Israelites who complied with His command to celebrate the feast of the lamb, the Passover (cf. Exod 12:28), intervened on their behalf and led all His people out of slavery and passed them between the miraculously divided waters of the Red Sea to the banks of new life in freedom.

It is worth noting that in the light of the comparative analysis of the biblical phrases “with the strong hand” (ביד חזקה) and “with the outstretched arm” (בזרע נטויה) with similar expressions ranging from Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty (1800 BC), hymns glorifying the Pharaoh-winners show their full capacity as men conquering other nations by their “strong hand”: “the arm of king is regarded as the vehicle by which he conquers”  [7]. Analogically Israelites’ hymn for God (Exod 15:1-21; cf.: Exod 3:19; 6:1.6; 13:3.9.14.16; 15:16), which glorifies “the power of the hand” of God, within the framework of Egypt’s cultural canons reserved for Pharaoh-winners, shows God יהוה as the king-winner, more powerful than the hitherto existing peremptory ruler – the Pharaoh. It is worth mentioning that the analysis of Amarna Letters (about 1400-1360 BC) and particularly of the letter of Abdi-Heba, the king of Jerusalem (in three places he writes that he became a king of Jerusalem thanks to the hand of powerful Pharaoh, whereas the original word “hand” is sonically similar to the Hebrew word זרע – hand, arm, power) prove that inspired authors, adherent to the same cultural environment of Canaan of the fifteenth century before Christ, had also to know this Egyptian expression.

The exodus is a battle in which God won a victory over the Pharaoh. Similarly, one ought to understand Jesus’ departure from this world as the fight in which God gained victory over the devil thus fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah  [8].

The existence of the analogy between the victory of God in Israel’s exodus through the Red Sea and the victory of Jesus in His exodus through the Hades is visible in the resemblance of the literary logic of the two songs: Exod 15:1-19 and Rev 15:3b-4.

Meynet  [9] draws attention to the crucial double question in Exod 15:11, around which the structure of this song was built; he also points out on the occurrence of the analogous structure in the song of Moses and of the Lamb in Rev 15:3b-4, where the central place is occupied by the rhetorical question glorifying God.

God’s responding to the obedience of Jesus, who within the framework of the Paschal Feast before His exodus made the “anamnesis-offering” of Himself  [10], intervened on Jesus’ behalf and led Him out from the life in this world and passed Him through the Abyss to “the bank” of new life; in other words, God brought Jesus out from among the dead (cf. Heb 13:20).

As God closely tied Israel’s departure out of Egypt with the execution of the avenging judgment upon the gods of Egypt (cf. Exod 12:12)  [11], so in Jesus’ departure God inscribed a judgment which the Holy Spirit executes upon the devil, the ruler of this world (cf. John 12:31; 16:11; 1 John 3:8).

Just as the departure from the place of celebrating the Paschal Feast and the passage between the waters of the Abyss (the Red Sea) was an act of making the covenant between God and Israel  [12], so similarly Jesus’ departure from the Cenacle and His passage between the darkness of the “Abyss-Death” was an act of establishing the New Covenant in His Blood.

It is worth noting that in Jonah 2:3-7 one can see the illustration of the Lord’s People conviction of the location of the after-death land (i.e. of Sheol) somewhere under sea, at the bottoms of the mountains and lands. By virtue of this relationship between the sea and Sheol one ought to understand the passage of Israel upon the bottom of the Red Sea as the passage through the land of the Death-Abyss. Israelites had to go down into the deep pit, which is the sea bottom, in order to climb up thereafter until they reached the other side of the sea. Israelites under the leadership of the Lord passed through the abyss!  [13]

It was and it is very important for all those who received and receive the faith in Jesus as the Savior that not only He himself passed this way to eternal life but He is the leader for all His people to pass this way. Jesus is the leader to eternal life – ἀρχηγός τῆς ζωῆς  [14]. By virtue of this function of Christ as the leader, the biblical typological relationship fully appears between:

(a) the passage of all Israel under the leadership of Moses and led by God through the Abyss of the waters of the Red Sea to the new life in freedom from the Pharaoh who subjugated them, and

(b) the passage of all the Church under the leadership of Jesus Christ and led by God through the Abyss of Death to the new life in freedom from the devil who subjugates us.

It should be noted that although in His historically single act Jesus passed through death alone, it is, however, thanks to the liturgical “now” contained especially in the Eucharist that Jesus is the leader in this passage for those who want to follow Him to the “other bank” which is eternal life. Still, in this “only” liturgical participation of them all, it appears again the similarity between the exodus of Israel and exodus of the Church. For all Israelites until the end of earthly life, the only way to participate in the exodus is the annual Passover; and it is Passover, God’s liturgical gift for Israel and the heritage of her successive generations that Jesus Christ took into His own divine hands to form of it a new reality – the Eucharist.

2. The explanation of “commemoration” as the ability of the Passover liturgy to “make something present”.

To understand the liturgical “now” of the Eucharist, it is necessary to remember on the basis of the Bible how the Jews understand its archetype, Passover.

The Bible makes it possible to read, in accordance with God’s intention, the essential meaning of the yearly celebration. Passover is not only the remembering of the immemorial past, but first it “makes present”  [15] the events which God has done for his people in Egypt; it is “a redemptive activity of God”  [16]. This specificity of Passover reflects the Hebrew term זכרון meaning “remembrance” (Exod 12:14)  [17]. Poniży  [18] points out the wording contained in the Tractate “Pesachim” X.5, showing the proper manner of understanding and of experiencing the celebration of Passover: “In every generation each person should see himself as if he himself went out from Egypt… Today we are in the passage through the Red Sea … Today we enter into our heritage.”

The celebration of the paschal solemnity is regulated by rules, the faithful pursuance of which should be guarded by everybody, but especially by the leader of this worship assembly. To comply with the prescriptive order of the Passover (in Hebrew “Seder” סדר  [19]), participants of this celebration rely on a special liturgical book, the “Passover Haggadah”  [20]. By comparing  [21] Moses’ speeches in Exod 13:8 and Deut 6:23 concerning the day of the Passover, “Haggadah” explains and proves the Passover’s ability of “making present.”

In Exod 13:8 Moses addresses the Israelites who are just leaving Egypt and explains to them how in the future they will have to explain to their sons the meaning of the Passover celebration: “And you will say to your son in that day, It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.”

Later in Deut 6:20-25, Moses addresses the Israelites who, for the most part on account of their age, were neither witnesses of the Egyptian plagues nor of the exit from slavery because at the time of departure they were either children or not yet conceived (cf. Num 32:11-13). Nevertheless, Moses ordered them in compliance with Exod 13:8 to recount to their sons: “21We were servants under Pharaoh’s yoke in Egypt; and the Lord took us out of Egypt with a strong hand. 22And the Lord did great signs and wonders against Egypt, and against Pharaoh and all his house, before our eyes. 23And he took us out from that place, guiding us here to give us this land, as he said in his oath to our fathers” (Deut 6:21-23).

Therefore every Israelite has to have awareness of the participation, thanks to the celebrated liturgy, in the historically single departure from Egypt  [22]. Regelson’s Haggadah (32) clearly teaches this:

“In every generation, one ought to regard himself as though he had personally come out of Egypt. (here is Exod 13:3) Not only our forefathers did the Holy One, blessed is He, redeem, but also ourselves did He redeem with them. As it is said: (here is Deut 6:20-25).”

The Hebrew text, printed beside the English text, is particularly important. Below is the Hebrew text and its literal translation:

The meaning of this text becomes understandable in comparison to the biblical text describing the Israelites’ going out from Egypt. For when Moses was going out, he took Joseph’s bones (עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף) with him (Exod 13:19). Is it important?

About the importance of bones one can read in Gen 50:25; Josh 24:32; 1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam 21:12-14; 1 Kgs 13:31; 2 Kgs 23:18; 1 Chr 10:12; 1 Macc 13:25; Ps 34:21; Sir 46:12; 49:10.15; Jer 8:1; Bar 2:24; Ezek 37:1-14. Ska  [23] points out the importance of the act of digging up of Joseph’s bones from under the ground, the Egyptian ground – this is the beginning of the process of coming out of Israel from the state of the slavery, the beginning of the nascency of Israel as the People of God. According to Ska, Exod 13:17-22 represents the transition between the story about plagues and Passover and the story about the passage through the sea. Ska shows that Israel has broken with her own Egyptian past (and that is just why Moses dug up the bones of Joseph) and all the People went off to the new and unknown world. Exod 14:1-31 narrates how to make a definitive transition to this new dimension of the existence.

Exod 13:19 WTT narrates:

The literal translation is as follows:

a And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him,

b for he had certainly adjured the children of Israel saying,

c God will certainly visit you, and you will carry up my bones with you from here.

The biblical author marked the extraordinary importance of the described event in this verse by the double use of the emphatic sequence  [24] composed of the verb in the infinitive absolute and the same verb in the perfect or imperfect tense:

The first time this sequence appears with the verb שׁבע (to swear); it should be translated as “had certainly adjured.”

The second time this sequence appears with the verb פקד (to visit); it should be rendered as “will certainly visit.”

Such a dual emphasis is very rare in the Bible  [25]: it does not exist anywhere else in Exod 1-18 (i.e. in the literary entirety, within which there is the verse in question here). It occurs four times in the Book of Exodus (13:19; 19:13; 22:22; 23:24), while in the whole Hebrew Bible only forty-six times. Its presence in the text implies that it describes a particularly important event. Thus, Moses’ taking of Joseph’s bones had not only theological but also historical significance. It would have been true since Joseph, as the steward of Egypt and the highest ranking person after Pharaoh, would have issued an order to be buried immediately after his death in the land of Canaan, the land promised by God to the fathers. So Joseph did issue an order, after all in relation to his father Jacob, according to his last will (cf. Gen 49:33-50:14). When Joseph abandoned this possibility, he did so under God’s inspiration for the fulfillment of God’s plan. For it is necessary to remember that it is God who is the source of Joseph’s power for interpreting the dreams revealing His purposes for man or nation (cf. Gen 37:5-10; 40:8; 41:16.25.28.32.38.39).

Therefore one ought to conclude that in compliance with God’s inspiration, the patriarch Joseph wanted his bones to participate in the exodus. In that sense, he and all past and future generations of Israel also partook in the exodus. This historic event was proven to be not only a single act of liberation of Abraham’s descendants in accordance with the covenant God made with Abraham when God passed between halved animals (cf. Gen 15), but also the act of making the eternal covenant by God with all the people, the perfect act done between halved waters of the Red Sea  [26].

Just as the patriarch Joseph took part in the exodus by the fact that his bones were taken from Egypt; so too, according to the Haggadah’s injunction, every Israelite has to perceive his essence (his bone)  [27] as if it came out of Egypt. Every Israelite by the Paschal Liturgy celebrated annually participates in that event from earlier centuries; thus this event constitutes the whole of Israel as the people of God.

It should therefore be stressed that in the Passover liturgy redemptive events do not “become present” because they do not take place at the present time of the contemporary Israelites (as it is usually incorrectly interpreted, unfortunately). However, contemporary Israelites do “become present” at the past time because they actually participate in those past redemptive events from earlier centuries. In accordance with the meaning of the shown biblical texts and “Passover Haggadah,” this and only this is the correct understanding of the terms “become present” and “making present” which describe the relation between the acts of the Passover liturgy and the redemptive events that are represented by these acts.

In the same way one should correctly understand the meaning of the liturgy of the Eucharist as a new Passover in its relation to the exodus of Jesus Christ. Thanks to this liturgy, the redemptive passage through Hades does not take place in our time, but we actually stand by Christ in His time from two thousand years ago to participate in His exodus and to be together with Him and to follow Him on the way through death to life.

This direction of “making present” is confirmed by the conclusion of the above discussed Haggadah text which begins: “In every generation, one ought to regard himself as though he had personally come out of Egypt” (Regelson 32). The final words are: “Therefore, it is our duty to thank, praise, laud, glorify, extol, bless, exalt, and adore Him Who did all of these miracles for our fathers and for ourselves. He has brought us forth from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to festive day, from darkness to a great light, and from subjugation to redemption. Let us then recite before Him a new song.”

Similarly in the Eucharist one ought to worship the One Who brought up from Hades the great shepherd Jesus Christ and us together with Him.

3. Jesus as the victor in the battle against death and as the leader on the way to life.

The liturgical “making present” of the redemptive events, given to us by Jesus in the Eucharist, permits every believer to consciously enter into the time of Jesus to follow Him on His way through death to life in order to be under His command in the battle against the devil and to win with Him. St. Luke refers to this role of Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles (3:15) when he shows, in the manner appropriate to the mentality of the Jewish and Greek readers, Christ as “ἀρχηγός τῆς ζωῆς καὶ σωτήρ.” That is to say, Christ as the hero, the master, the commander leading us to life, the savior. How can this be confirmed?

First, it is worth noting that this title “ἀρχηγός” was clearly understood by the Jews and Greeks of that time.

The Jews knew from the Septuagint that “ἀρχηγός”  [28] describes not only the heads of the houses of their families (cf. Exod 6:14), but it also describes God (cf. Jer 3:4 με ἐκάλεσας … ἀρχηγὸν τῆς παρθενίας σου) leading Israel as His bride to the Promised Land, to the land of life in abundance. This route forced them to bear many hardships and finally to take up the fight against the people living there in those days. Thanks to God’s leadership and to the special gifts given first to Moses and then to Joshua, Israel won Canaan. On the basis of the typology, this way and the victorious fight have to be translated into the spiritual way. The Chosen Leader, anointed by God for the mission, is God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

Christ’s victory over spiritual powers is expressed in the New Testament, including St. Paul, by using many different terms, such as: θριαμβεύω “to triumph” or “to lead in triumph” (2 Cor 2:14; Col 2:15), βασιλεύω “to reign” (Rom 5:17.21; 1 Cor 15:25; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 11:15.17; 20:4.6), and κυριεύω “to be a ruler” (Rom 14:9; 1 Tim 6:15). The designation of Jesus as Lord “κύριος,” which is the word used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew name of God יהוה , also belongs to these terms; it was used frequently.

The Greeks, in turn, attributed the term “ἀρχηγός” to gods and heroes, i.e. to persons who were models for others  [29]. Now is the time to ask the question so crucial for the exegesis of Paul’s writing about the Holy Eucharist (1 Cor 11). Did the Apostle Paul, during his time of preaching the gospel of God to the Greeks, show them Jesus Christ as the hero, as the winner in the fight against the devil and death?  [30] Jesus is the winner  [31] and the leader (κύριος – ἀρχηγός), the only one who conquered death and who gives life to every creature. He is also the One who at the end of time will give up to God the kingdom acquired in such an extraordinary battle, just after the time when he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power (ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν 1 Cor 15:24). Now then, was Jesus Christ, thus described, someone about whom the Greek recipients of Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians could not listen to without interest? Was this Jesus Christ’s resemblance to the ideal person formed by ages of Hellenic culture? Was this resemblance essential for them and useful for making them able to understand clearly the opus of Savior and the Holy Eucharist, which actually connects with this opus in the deepest manner?

The answer to these questions must be in the affirmative. Why? It is so, because the mentality of this nation was formed by the epics of Homer, the historical works of Hesiod or Polybius (the best Hellenistic historian), and many other historians, orators, and tragedians. All of these men praised the courage and strength of the heroes, who fought with God’s help in defending the moral values and the life of the nation  [32].

For many leaders and warriors, Homer was surely a fascinating teacher. For instance, Alexander the Great had his copy of The Iliad during his expedition to Egypt, and it was The Iliad that he believed was the most valuable possession belonging to him there. According to Plutarch  [33] “1 When a small coffer was brought to him, which those in charge of the baggage and wealth of Dareius thought the most precious thing there, he asked his friends what valuable object they thought would most fittingly be deposited in it. 2 And when many answered and there were many opinions, Alexander himself said he was going to deposit the Iliad there for safe keeping (αὐτὸς ἔφη τὴν Ἰλιάδα φρουρήσειν ἐνταῦθα καταθέμενος). This is attested by many trustworthy authorities. 3 And if what the Alexandrians tell us on the authority of Heracleides is true, then it would seem that Homer was no idle or unprofitable companion for him in his expedition (οὔκουν{οὐκ} ἀργὸς οὐδ᾽ ἀσύμβολος αὐτῷ συστρατεύειν ἔοικεν Ὅμηρος). 4 They say, namely, that after his conquest of Egypt he wished to found a large and populous Greek city which should bear his name, and by the advice of his architects was on the point of measuring off and enclosing a certain site for it. 5 Then, in the night, as he lay asleep, he saw a wonderful vision. A man with very hoary locks and of a venerable aspect appeared to stand by his side and recite these verses: ‘Now, there is an island in the much-dashing sea, In front of Egypt; Pharos is what men call it.’ Accordingly, he rose up at once and went to Pharos…”

Since the Hellenistic period, Alexander the Great was the ideal of a good king  [34]. An important characteristic was his personal involvement in battles at the head of his armies, which became the source of courage and strength for his soldiers. In light of this ideal, recipients of Paul’s letters looked at Jesus Christ, who as the leader of them and of all the New People, had personally engaged in mortal battle against the devil; and who, as the winner, bestowed them with supernatural goods; and who, in a completely new manner, accomplished that worldly ideal of a king-leader  [35].

What is more, St. Paul knew this inspiring literature because he was born in Tarsus and spent his childhood there (cf. Act 22:3) in a cultural center which rivaled Athens and Alexandria  [36]. He frequented the Hellenistic school there where, according to the teaching program, Homer’s epic poems were used to teach the pupils how to read.

It is worth mentioning an important information about St. Paul as a writer and as an expert in Greek, including the following  [37]: Paul had ability to adapt the manner of proclaiming the Gospel to Jewish and Greek listeners; Paul was an outstanding writer of the Greek language; he naturally used expressions of the intellectual elite, as well as popular words of the day of his times; Paul spoke fluent Greek and not only: he excellently perceived its different nuances. In the school’s reading canon, Homer’s works were far superior to those of at least six other outstanding authors of equal talent who could not begin to compete with Homer!  [38]

In turn, it is necessary to say about Paul himself that he lived like his hero, Jesus Christ, because he tirelessly fought the good fight for eternal life for himself and for all those to whom Jesus sent him (cf. 1 Cor 9:16-27; Phil 1:30; 3:14; Col 2:1; 1 Thess 2:2; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 4:7).

Because the Apostle spoke and wrote in a manner appropriate to the mentality of the recipients (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-22), it is not by accident in the First Letter to the Corinthians how he exhorts them to prefer prophecy over speaking in tongues (i.e. the uttering of unintelligible speech) in their public meetings. Paul stresses his point of view by using military terminology in 1 Cor 14:8:

“For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?”

καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ἄδηλον σάλπιγξ φωνὴν δῷ, τίς παρασκευάσεται εἰς πόλεμον;

The argument had to be convincing to the recipients. If so, it means that in matters of war, the habit of using a special trumpet to call the army together was familiar to them.

A simple trumpet of a long straight tube was well-known already in antiquity as an instrument for signal and fanfare  [39]. Common was the heritage of military and religious customs of Egypt, Israel, Greece and Rome, and in this the custom of the use of trumpets in the army and at sacral meals (cf. Num 10:9-10). The trumpets were used previously by the people of God and the heathen, especially for calling the people to the sacrifice, and whenever they marched into battle  [40].

About trumpets of ancient Egypt  [41]: “The history of Egyptian music stretches from before 3000 B.C.E. to the present. (…) Mostly it concerns music in religious contexts: texts of hymns and psalms, (…) sacred meals to the accompaniment of music.” “instruments common in ancient Egypt were (…) the straight trumpet (a soldier’s instrument), and the *sistrum (a cult instrument).”

About trumpets of ancient Israel  [42]: “Small gold or silver trumpets of ancient Israel, similar to the Greek salpinx and the Roman tuba. They are mentioned in the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls as signaling or ceremonial instruments.”

About trumpets of ancient Rome  [43]: “A straight tube of bronze or iron, 1.25-1.6 m long, with a slightly flaring bell, it was first and foremost a military instrument, sounding the attack and retreat in battle. In civilian life it was heard in funeral processions, at games and gladiatorial contests, and in religious rituals, particularly sacrifices.”

The Corinthian Jews knew the habit of using a special trumpet before the battle. They knew it from their own history and from several places in the Old Testament; and surely in the Greek Septuagint translation  [44], the Greeks knew this from the works of Homer  [45], Hesiod, Aeschylus, Plutarch, and many others. Besides, military issues occurred in the everyday life of many of them.

Hesiod was a Greek oral poet generally thought by scholars to have been active between 750 and 650 BC. Since at least Herodotus’ time (Histories, 2.53), Hesiod and Homer have generally been considered the earliest Greek poets whose works have survived  [46].

Aeschylus (c. 525-456 BC) was the first of the three ancient Greek tragedians whose work has survived, the others being Sophocles and Euripides, and is often described as the father of tragedy. He was an eyewitness to the naval battle at Salamis, and in his play he describes the Greek victory over the Persian fleet in 480 BC:  [47]

“The trumpet with its blast fired all their line; and instantly, at the word of command, with the even stroke of foaming oars they smote the briny deep”:

σάλπιγξ δ᾽ ἀϋτῇ πάντ᾽ ἐκεῖν᾽ ἐπέφλεγεν. εὐθὺς δὲ κώπης ῥοθιάδος ξυνεμβολῇ ἔπαισαν ἅλμην βρύχιον ἐκ κελεύματος.

Plutarch (c. 46–120 CE) was a Greek historian, biographer, essayist, known primarily for his Lives and Moralia. He wrote about Alexander the Great  [48]:

“after the trumpet had sounded the signal, he attacked the walls”

καὶ τῇ σάλπιγγι σημήνας ἀπεπειρᾶτο τῶν τειχῶν.

This conclusion allows one to go to the second part of the present article, which describes the ancient military traditions of the Jews and Greeks, among which the “anamnesis-offering” played an important role.

4. The ancient custom of the offering of the anamnesis sacrifice in the background of other religious customs among the Greeks.

The summarized analogies discussed earlier between Israel’s departure from Egypt and Jesus’ departure from this world showed that Jesus’ passage through Hades should be regarded as the struggle that He fought against the enemy of God and humanity – the devil. The interpretive comparison of basic characteristics of the mentality of the Corinthians, the recipients of Paul’s Letter explaining the Eucharist for them (1 Cor 11), led to the same interpretative key.

Now the studies need to broaden the knowledge of the war traditions of the ancient peoples of Europe, Asia, or Egypt for many centuries before the time of the New Testament, especially of the Hebrews and Greeks  [49].

It must be pointed out that there was the very important custom of offering a special sacrifice before a fight or before a dangerous journey. The aim of such sacrifice was to obtain the help of the gods, in whose effective intervention the donor believed  [50].

The next most common religious elements of the peoples of antiquity are: the sacrifices being offered as a thanksgiving for winning a battle and returning safely from an anabasis, the pouring of wine as a drink offering, the burning of animals as an offering, and the lifting up of pure hands in prayer.

The presentation of the “anamnesis-offering” on the broader background of other religious traditions will prove the existence of a common religious language in which one communicated with the true God and with the ancient gods. The Apostle Paul could refer to the fundamental concepts of this language, when he took on the task of the explaining the holy mystery of the Eucharist to the Greeks and Jews.

5. Prayers and the anamnesis sacrifices before the fight as a custom among the Jews.

The Greeks were accustomed to praying and offering anamnesis sacrifices before the battle. The same custom was practiced among the Jews in the Old Testament.

6. The completion of the research and its application to the exegesis of the consecratory formula.

In the New Testament, the word “ἀνάμνησις” appears only four times  [95]; however, it appears three times within the framework of Jesus’ formula of consecration: “Do this as my remembrance (ἀνάμνησις)” (cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24.25) and once in the statement referring to the sacrifices of the Old Covenant (Heb 10:3). An understanding of the consecration formula requires analysis of the meaning of this term in other places in the Bible and in the extra-biblical Greek literature.

Beginning with the understanding of the Hebrew “זכרון” as the equivalent of the Greek word “ανάμνησις,” and being aware of the realities of the liturgical celebration of the Passover within the framework in which Jesus has instituted His “remembrance” (anamnesis)  [96], biblical scholars showed the proper meaning of that “remembrance” as “making present” Jesus’ sacrifice and Jesus’ resurrection, where Jesus’ sacrifice is the expiatory sacrifice and simultaneously the sacrifice constituting the new covenant between God and humankind  [97].

Being aware of the results of previous research, I have proposed in this article to analyze the meaning of these biblical texts in which the very same Greek term “ἀνάμνησις” appears. Taking into account the significance of the Hebrew equivalent, it is worth noting that the use by saint Paul of this word which appears only five times in the Septuagint might not be accidental  [98]. Rather it can be assumed that it was quite the reverse. It must be very important since the Apostle chose this rarely used word to translate the content of these significant words of Jesus (Hebrew / Aramaic) by which He constituted the New and Eternal Covenant between God and humankind!

It is important to remember that the author could have used another Greek word “μνημόσυνον” which translates as a „remembrance,” “memorial,” “memorandum,” or “reminder;” and it appears in the Septuagint as many as 77 times. This word is always a translation of Hebrew words being derived from the root “זכר”  [99] which is the same one from which the above mentioned word “זכרון” is derived! Because the author did not make this choice, it means that he wanted the reader of his text to understand the context of the “ἀνάμνησις” in the light of these particular five texts  [100].

It is worth mentioning that the phrase εἰς μνημόσυνον has two different meanings in the Bible  [101]:

(1) to be remembered by God

(a) Sir 45:16; Isa 66:3; Acts 10:4: to make an offering as a reminder before the Lord;

(b) Sir 50:16: to use trumpets of beaten metal (cf. Num 10:2 and 10:9-10) to make them resound “as a reminder” before the Lord;

(c) Sir 45:9.11: to be remembered by the Lord or to be as a reminder before the Lord; and

(2) to be remembered by people (Exod 17:14; Esth 1:1[16]; 2:23; 9:32; 10:2; Ps 111:6; Matt 26:13; Mark 14:9).

How then ought one to understand the Lord Jesus’ command that what He did during the Last Supper must be fulfilled by His disciples “in memory” or “in remembrance” as is traditionally being translated and explained?

It should be noted on the basis of the research carried out, that:

(1) To offer the anamnesis sacrifices before the fight was a common religious-military custom among the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world. These people often experienced that their gods, in whom they believed, answered their sacrifices by their effective intervention, so they won victory and safely returned to their homeland. Numerous Ancient Greek literary and historical works confirm this conviction.

(2) Hebrews were living in the same world of religious traditions and had similar ideas about what pleased the gods. When the one and only true God first called Abraham and after that his descendants to be His people, He did not strip off all their religious customs at a glance. Rather, He gave their customs a proper direction to change, customizing them to His own plans of leading Israel to a fuller and fuller knowledge of His delights. Thus God taught His people how He expected them to offer sacrifices to Him, so that they could offer Him proper worship and be truly worthy of Him.

(3) Pagan peoples believed that their gods performed the function of their helpers (βοηθός) and defenders (σκεπαστής), and for that reason they used to offer them sacrifices (cf. Deut 32:38). It was the same in the lives of the Chosen People because one of the essential needs of Israel was protection against their enemies. Therefore the one and only true God fulfilled this function on behalf of Israel as their covenant partner. After God had made the covenant with Israel at Sinai and they had to set forth, God gave them the laws of the trumpets and of the anamnesis sacrifices (Num 10:9-10).

(4) It was exclusively on the strength of man cooperating with God that the Son of God chose to be the Savior of all mankind. It is not as the Omnipotent God that Jesus redeems us! He redeemed us as the One who truly accepted the realities of the Incarnation as one of the sons of mankind and as a man who needed God’s help in a dangerous situation. As stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews 5:7: “In the days when He was in the flesh, He offered prayers and supplications (δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας) with loud cries and tears to the One who was able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence.”

Jesus was heard by God the Father; however, His plea was not answered by removing death from Him but in a completely different way:

Heb 13:20: “The God of peace … brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the eternal covenant, Jesus our Lord.”

God led Jesus through Hades, the sphere of death, and then He brought his Son up from the dead and to the “other side,” to a truly new life in eternity, just as He brought the Israelites to a new life free from the subjugation of the Pharaoh.

In the Cenacle, Jesus offered the sacrifice of Himself; He offered the same sacrifice which took place on Golgotha: “This is my body, that for you is being given” (Luke 22:19: διδόμενον – stated in the present participle) and “This is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out” (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20: ἐκχυννόμενον – stated in the present participle)  [102]. The present participles of both statements means that this sacrifice lasts as a logical unit extended in time over several hours or, in other words, since the moment of its offering in the Cenacle until the moment of Jesus’ dying on the cross.

The Father accepted this sacrifice as:

(a) a propitiation for our sins (cf. Matt 26:28; Luke 24:47; Heb 2:17; 1 John 2:2);

(b) a sacrifice sealing the establishment of the covenant (cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). According to the custom described in Gen 15, Jesus passed through the sphere of death, the sphere of His own blood, analogically as the parties of the covenant did in the ancient Near East who passed over the ground soaked with the blood of slaughtered animals  [103]; and

(c) the anamnesis sacrifice (cf. Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25), which assures God’s intervention on behalf of Jesus as its immolator in the situation of the fight. This sacrifice belongs to the benefits of the simultaneously made covenant, just as the anamnesis sacrifice described in Num 10:9-10 belongs to the benefits of the covenant made in the blood of animals on Mount Sinai.

Responding to the question posited at the beginning of this article: What does it mean “to do for the anamnesis”? It should be noted that:

It was before leaving the Cenacle that Jesus already made the covenant with God in His blood whose the final moment of being poured out would be His death on the Cross on Golgotha. For Jesus gave to the Cenacle Sacrifice not only the meaning of constituting the New Covenant (cf. Jer 31:31), but also the meaning of a sacrifice belonging to the benefits of this covenant, a special sacrifice – the anamnesis sacrifice (cf. Num 10:9-10). By virtue of the established covenant, God as Jesus’ contracting party pledged to remember Jesus in the fight, since Jesus offered the anamnesis sacrifice of the New Covenant before His fight. God’s remembrance of Jesus manifested itself at the time of His ingress into the gates of death. Thus God intervening with His power enabled Jesus to overcome the hitherto existing ruler of Hades, the devil. Thanks to this, God gave Him the power to come out as the Son of Man by the act of Resurrection from the darkness of Hades, just as He had given the power to the Israelites to come out of the darkness of the sea bottom (cf. Exod 13:17-15:21).

Every time the disciples are obedient to Jesus’ command and assembled for the Eucharist, they offer the sacrifice of His Body and Blood “as His anamnesis” (cf. 1 Cor 11:24-25). This means that at the time when they offer this sacrifice and consume it, they are required not only to participate knowingly in Jesus’ “handing Himself for us” to death, but also to wait for Him for His return to them at the same celebration (cf. 1 Cor 11:26)  [104]. For by virtue of the same sacrifice, which is not only “for our sins” but also “the anamnesis sacrifice,” God will answer by His intervention on behalf of the Son of Man: He will make present the miracle of Jesus’ exit out from Hades (cf. Heb 13:20) and of His return to the Cenacle. More precisely the Eucharistic participants will be really made the witnesses of the miracle of Jesus’ exit from Hades and of His return to the Cenacle. They will be really in the time of these historical miracles of Jesus’ life.

In the light of the research carried out, the anamnesis sacrifice is „the sacrifice before the fight.” It means that when Christ (through the person of the priest) does His anamnesis, He is really before the fight against the devil, He is really before leaving the Cenacle. In every Eucharist, Jesus is in His existential situation from two thousand years ago in the Cenacle.

Every time the disciples are assembled for the Eucharist, they are with Jesus in the Cenacle. They are there in the time when He is before His fight against the devil. When Jesus’ priests do this what He does in this very time, they do this with Him as His anamnesis sacrifice. So when the whole congregation eats and drinks His Body and Blood, it participates in His death and His return to them as the winner.

His redemptive passage through Hades does not take place in our time, but we actually stand by Christ in His time from two thousand years ago to participate in His exodus and to be together with Him and to follow Him on the way through death to life.

The eucharistic congregation is in Jesus’ time when He offers His anamnesis sacrifice and makes His Church to participate in His redemptive Death and Resurrection. This is the right reason why the Catholic Church teaches that Eucharist has the possibility of “making present” Christ’s Death and Resurrection.