DR - it, among others, portrays the eternal sacrifice that is re-presented, hence “slain before the foundation of the world”.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
This is the KJV.
My Jerusalem bible translates it as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world too
And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.
FWIW, Catholic translators of the Bible to English translated Luke 22:19 in the following ways:
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.
Why didn’t Catholic translators specifically use the phrase “memorial sacrifice” when translating Luke 22:19?
Per http://biblehub.com/luke/22-19.htm, the translation from the Aramaic Bible of Luke 22:19 is as follows:
He took bread and he gave thanks, he broke and he gave to them and he said, “This is my body, which shall be given for the sake of your persons. You shall be doing this to commemorate me.”
Jesus most likely gave these instructions in Aramaic. Is there even an Aramaic word or phrase He could have used to mean "memorial sacrifice in this instance?
Ive also wondered this same thing about Matthew’s use of “Porneia” in his “exception clauses”, but i never thought about it with “Anamnesin”.
Thats true. And the literal translation is closer to those.
Its kind of a funny sentence to translate. But either way, we know that God is eternal and His Son (Whom has two natures) is “caught up” into eternity in a way that is simply a mystery to understand.
A blogger addresses this topic here: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2014/08/remembrance-and-eucharist-does-mean.html?q=remembrance
He shows some 30+ places in contemporary writings where ἀνάμνησιν only refers to remembrance and comes to the following conclusion:
From our study of the term αναμνησις in Hebrews and non-canonical literature contemporary, we see that the term does not mean “memorial sacrifice/offering” but “memory” in a more “physiological” sense of the term. This does not disprove, per se, Catholic claims that 1 Cor 11 and Luke 22 teach the Eucharist to be a “memorial sacrifice,” but it refutes the errant claim that the term in and of itself means “memorial offering.”
I hope this helps…
The author took 1 Clement 53:1 out of context, which is about “sacrifice”:
The Master, brethren, hath need of nothing at all. He desireth not
anything of any man, save to confess unto Him.
For the elect David saith; I will confess unto the Lord, and it
shall please Him more than a young calf that groweth horns and
hoofs. Let the poor see it, and rejoice.
And again He saith; Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay
thy vows to the Most High: and call upon Me in the day of thine
affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me.
For a sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit.
For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved,
and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things
therefore to put you in remembrance.
It is evident what Clement is saying here, in that now he is making sacrifice on behalf of the Corinthians, and that is with encouraging their repentance and calling on God for them. This becomes even better evident when we read further:
When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and
forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses,
Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest
forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have
transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto
them: they have made for themselves molten images.
And the Lord said unto him; I have spoken unto thee once and twice,
saying, I have seen this people, and behold it is stiff-necked. Let
Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under
heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and
numerous more than this.
And Moses said; Nay, not so, Lord Forgive this people their sin, or
blot me also out of the book of the living.
O mighty love! O unsurpassable perfection! The servant is bold with
his Master; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth
that himself also be blotted out with them.
Now listen, and don’t misunderstand, the word “ἀνάμνησις” has a semantical range, as do most words in Greek. Words must be best understood based on context. In regards to “anamnesis”, it is clear that this word carries very strong sacrificial connotations. Every single one of the Greek Lexicons and concordances I have come into contact with cite this fact. It cannot be denied. Is the word synonymous with “sacrifice”? Of course not! It is its own independent word that carries its own meanings. Yet, often times, this comes into relation with sacrifice. The Lord’s Supper as a whole carries a clear sacrificial tone. To deny this is really bad theology. Just look at the whole employment of “body” and “blood” being given and for a “new covenant.”; one can easily draw parallels between the Last Supper and the blood of the covenant in Exodus 24. Having the word “ἀνάμνησις” appear in the context of the last supper (Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23) only reinforces the idea that the Eucharist is sacrificial.
Now, I’d suggest check these out:
Now listen, and don’t misunderstand, the word “ἀνάμνησις” has a semantical range, as do most words in Greek… Is the word synonymous with “sacrifice”? Of course not! It is its own independent word that carries its own meanings. Yet, often times, this comes into relation with sacrifice.
Ah, good. You’ve come 'round to my point of view. I knew we’d eventually get here.
I’ve maintained that entire point of view the entire time.
Again, of course it’ll have a relation to sacrifice - the context here is about remembering Jesus’s coming, ultimate Sacrifice.
Or the context being that the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the One Sacrifice of Calvary is the same Sacrifice.
"“This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you"
Notice: the sacrificial language ‘given’ and ‘shed’. Also, the institution of the Eucharist took place on the night before Calvary, hence “will be given” and “will be shed”, and not ‘[was] given’ or ‘[was] shed’; that is because Calvary is re-enacted and Christ, through the priest, gives his body and sheds his blood from the once-for-all eternal sacrifice from the foundation of the world. To separate Calvary from the Eucharist disgraces and empties the entire meaning of Our Lord sacrificing His Body and Blood for us.
The Re-presentation, of the Sacrifice once offered, and offered in eternity, eternally.
Not sure any communion view separates Calvary from Eucharist. And certainly we all agree that eucharist is 'thanksgiving", and that for Calvary. Now who is more thankful, one who acknowledges his unworthiness in receiving (Calvary) but in faith accepts one’s thanksgiving as acceptable before the Father, or one who prays,asks that it be acceptable?
And why would we need a priest (heirus) to offer something that is already acceptable despite our unworthiness ?
Can you see the deep meaning of the ceremony, and why the term eucharist or “thanksgiving” stuck ? Any sacrificial meaning is subservient to this direction. We offer up thanksgiving (of praise) for what the Father offered down to us, His Son, and for what the Son offered for us, being accepted, by the Father, as evidenced in the Resurrection. No need to say “may you find it acceptable Father”. Like Abe Lincoln issuing written emancipation for a slave, and the slave ceremoniously remembering at said times with thanksgiving, and certainly not offering back to Abe saying, " I hope you find this acceptable, and me worthy thru it) (and certainly not needing a lawyer to really re represent it). The written word of emancipation is quite effectual, as is Calvary, and the moment we first receive the gift.
At best we first read of a “president”, a presider, over the ceremony, stating nothing of any other qualification for any proper view of communion (symbolic, literal, spiritual,transsubstantive, consubstantial)
Altars are not for offering up mere “thanksgiving”. We offer up praise and thanksgiving for being held worthy to participate in the life, death, and resurrection of Our Blessed Lord that is made present in the Holy Mass, especially during the Sacrifice. We, by virtue of our Baptism and by divine privilege, are allowed to suffer with Our Lord as living sacrifices to conjoin with that of His eternal, living sacrifice of His Body and Blood on the altar. I honestly do not believe there can be anything we could possibly be more thankful for.
The entire Christian/Catholic world believed that the Mass was a sacrifice, the Eucharist the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, up to the time of Luther and in England Henry and his henchmen. 1500 years.
Protestants, why not believe it? It is the ultimate Good News! Yes, the Catholic Church holds, keeps, and reveres this treasure that will never be taken from her.
As a child I called the sanctuary light the “pilot light.” Yup, it is. The Real Presence.
not sure the Lord intended any more altars…the Last Supper was at a an eating table (of course any passover animal would have been at a temple altar earlier, as Christ would surely be on the altar of Calvary later…and so not sure earliest of Christians had altars.
Of course you have “thanksgiving” at your Eucharist…it is even verbalized, but for me it is the addition to the consecratory words, not found in writ nor earliest writings, " Pray that our sacrifice be acceptable to God our Father. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your (priests) hands ." Certainly sounds like an OT altar /sacrifice then, though bloodless. Still seems somewhat “conditional”, dampening a thanksgiving of an otherwise more surety of acceptance that Calvary is.
kindly disagree that eucharistic views/practices were uniform (and like Catholic today) up until 1500.
certainly when the idea of transubstantiation was put forth by one cleric in the 8oo’s, many clerics denounced it (way before the reformation) >it was not till the 13th century that Catholics were held to believe in transubstantiation.
So not so easy to paint with your broad stroke when dealing with just what is the history of the church’s understanding of “real presence”. And because I believe everything evolved in it’s Catholic view, that it is difficult to claim the current doctrine/practice as "apostolic’’…or rather lends itself to protestant views on the matter (when such freedom presented itself).
“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
Pope Clement I:
“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release” (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch:
“Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God” (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).