Jesus was making a new covenant

JESUS WAS MAKING A NEW COVENANT
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 26:28 This is My bloodof the covenant,
which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of
sins.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
"the BloodOf The New Covenant."
Matthew 26:28
W.F. Adeney
This verse is intensely interesting, because it contains one of our Lord's rare
sayings about the purpose of his death. For the most part the New Testament
teachings on that greattheme come from the apostles, who reflectedon the
event after it had passed into history, and with the light of the Resurrection
upon it. Still, it is not just to say that the apostles originatedthe doctrine of the
atonement. Not only is that doctrine foreshadowedin Isaiah53.; in the
institution of his Supper our Lord distinctly sets it forth. Before this he spoke
of his life being given as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28), and he called
himself the goodShepherd who lays down his life for the sheep(John 10:15).
I. JESUS SPEAKS WITH STRANGE EMPHASIS OF HIS BLOOD. In the
present day some people shrink from all reference to the blood of Christ. They

are disgustedwith the coarse and unmeaning language ofa certain class of
preachers to whom the mere physical image seems to be more than the truth
typified. But our Lord himself directs us to the subjectin the wine of the
Communion. We must interpret his meaning in the light of Jewishideas. The
Jew taught that the blood was the life (Leviticus 17:11). Then Christ gives us
his essentiallife. The blood was shed in the sacrifice of the victim at the altar.
Christ is the greatSacrifice for our sins, and as such he sheds his blood; i.e.
the blood signifies Christ dying for us; and then, beyond the mere actof
dying, it signifies the preciousnessofhis life given to us.
II. THE BLOOD OF CHRIST SEALS HIS NEW COVENANT. He was
instituting a new order, a fresh relationship betweenman and God. The old
covenantof the JewishLaw was obsolete.Menhad outgrownit, and were
ready to receive something largerand more spiritual. Jesus himself teaches
that he institutes the fresh relation. As a covenantsignifies certain terms and
arrangements, this new covenantof Christ's has its new conditions. His whole
teaching about the kingdom of heaven is expository of his covenant.
Preparations in prophecy (e.g. Jeremiah31:31) and explanations in apostolic
writings help us further to understand it.
1. It is for all nations, not only for Jews.
2. It is of grace, not of law.
3. It is spiritual, not of "carnalordinances."
III. THIS NEW COVENANT BRINGS REMISSIONOF SINS.

1. Christ forgives sins. By exercising his right to do so our Lord roused early
antagonismamong the defenders of the old religion. But the world has since
seenthat here lay the very root and core of his work. Here is the essence ofthe
gospelfor us today - it promises forgiveness ofsins.
2. This forgiveness springs from the death of Christ. We may find it difficult
to trace the connection;but it is not an invention of human speculation, for we
find our Lord himself speaking of it. It is Christ's own teaching that our sins
are forgiven through the shedding of his blood.
IV. THE REMISSION OF SINS IS OF WIDE APPLICATION. Jesus says it
is "for many." He did not die merely to save an electfew. He had large aims,
and he will not "see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied" until he has
brought many souls out of darkness into light. Therefore the very institution
of the Lord's Supper is an encouragementfor the penitent to seek the pardon
which Christ is so bountiful in bestowing. - W.F.A.

Biblical Illustrator
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessedit.
Matthew 26:26-29
Relationof the Holy Communion to Christ
R. Hooker, D. D.
The bread and cup are His body and blood, because they are causes
instrumental, upon the receiptwhereofthe participation of His body and
blood ensueth. Every cause is in the effect which growethfrom it. Our souls
and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects, the cause. whereofis the
person of Christ; His body and blood are the true well-spring out of which
this life floweth What merit, force, or virtue soeverthere is in His sacrificed
body and blood we freely, fully, and wholly have by this sacrament;and
because the sacramentitself, being but a corruptible and earthly creature,
must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in
men, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogetherupon the strength of His
glorious power, who is able and will bring to pass that the bread and cup
which He giveth us shall be truly the thing He promiseth.
(R. Hooker, D. D.)
The Eucharistthe greatfeastof the Church
J. P. Lange, D. D.
I. A true feast — for the nourishment of the spiritual life.
II. A sacredfeast — sanctifying from all carnal enjoyment.
III. A covenant feast-sealing redemption.
IV. A love feast — uniting the redeemed.

V. A supper feastforefestivalofdeath, of the end of all things, of the coming of
Christ.
(J. P. Lange, D. D.)
SacrificialaspectofChrist's death shownin the Lord's
A. Maclaren, D. D.
Supper: — This rite shows us what Christ thought, and would have us think,
of His death. By it He points out the moment of His whole careerwhich He
desires that men should remember. Not His words of tenderness and wisdom;
not His miracles, amazing and gracious as these were;not the flawless beauty
of His character, though it touches all hearts, and wins the most rugged to
love and the most degraded to hope; but the moment in which He gave His life
is that which He would imprint for ever on the memory of the world. And not
only so, but in the rite He distinctly tells us in what aspectHe would have that
death remembered. Not as the tragic end of a noble careerwhich might be
hallowedby tears such as are shed over a martyr's ashes;not as the crowning
proof of love; not as the supreme act of patient forgiveness;but as a death for
us, in which, as by the blood of the sacrifice, is securedthe remissionof sins.
And not only so, but the double symbol in the Lord's Supper — whilst in some
respects the bread and wine speak the same truths, and certainly point to the
same cross — has in eachof its parts speciallessons entrustedto it, and
specialtruths to proclaim. The bread and the wine both say, "RememberMe
and My death." Takenin conjunction they point to the death as violent; taken
separatelythey eachsuggestvarious aspects ofit, and of the blessings that will
flow to us therefrom.
I. A Divine treaty or covenant.

II. The forgiveness ofsins.
III. A life infused.
IV. A festalgladness.
(A. Maclaren, D. D.)
The New Testament
Ibid.
God's covenants with His people: — Ancient Israelhad lived for nearly 2000
years under the charter of their national existence, which was given on Sinai
amidst thunderings and lightnings (Exodus 19:5, etc.). And that covenant, or
agreement, or treaty, on the part of God was ratified by a solemnact, in which
the blood of the sacrifice, divided into two portions, was sprinkled, half upon
the altar, and the other half, after their acceptanceofthe conditions and
obligations of the covenant, on the people who had pledged themselves to
obedience. And now here is a Galileanpeasant, in a borrowedupper room,
within four-and-twenty hours of His ignominious death, which might seemto
blast all His work, who steps forward and says, "I put awaythat ancient
covenantwhich knits this nation to God. It is antiquated. I am the true
offering and sacrifice, by the blood of which, sprinkled on altar and on people,
a new covenant, built upon better promises, shall henceforth be." What a
tremendous piece of audacity, except on the one hypothesis that He who spake
was indeed the Word of God, and that He was making that which Himself had
establishedof old to give way to that which He establishes now. The new
covenant, which Christ seals in His blood, is the charter, the better charter,
under the conditions of which the whole world may find a salvation which
dwarfs all the deliverances ofthe past. Betweenus and the infinite Divine

nature there is establisheda firm and unmoveable agreement. He has limited
Himself by the utterance of a faithful word, and we can now come to Him with
His own promise, and castit down before Him, and say, "Thou hast spoken,
and Thou art bound to fulfil it." We have a covenant; God has shown us what
He is going to do, and has thereby pledged Himself to the performance.
(Ibid.)
The Lord's Supper
C. Molyneux.
I. The NATURE of the institution. It is a supper — strictly and essentiallyin
its own particular nature it is nothing else. Was apparently in connectionwith
another supper, and it seemedto be almost a part of that other supper. The
supper was significantand emblematic-a representationof something else.
II. The OBJECTand design. The death of Christ is brought before us. The
death of Christ as an offering for sin is brought before us. The death of Christ
as the sealof the everlasting covenantbetweenthe Father and the Son is
brought before us.
III. The OBSERVANCE ofthe rite. Just as simple as its nature and object.
The frequency of receptionis left open. The posture may he considered
indifferent. The positive directions and the actualpractice of our Lord.
(C. Molyneux.)
The lastsupper
J. C. Gray.
I. The TIME OF THE INSTITUTION.

1. During the feastof the Passover. Christthe true Passover(Exodus 12:3, 6,
7, and others; with John 1:29; Revelation5:6).
2. On the eve of His being offered. The meaning and purpose of the Passover
lamb transferred to Jesus, and the sense widened. That for the Jews only, this
for the true Israelof God, etc.
II. THE METHOD OF THE INSTITUTION.
1. With thanksgiving.
2. The bread-broken, distributed, eaten. Christ the bread of life. Receivedby
faith.
3. The wine. All were to drink it. The blood of Christ shed for the remissionof
sin.
4. They sung a hymn — left the table with joy and thankfulness.
III. THE PURPOSE OF THE INSTITUTION.
1. TO supersede the JewishPassover.
2. A memorial feast. No less binding upon Christians than any other law of
Christ. A dying command. Sacrednessoflast words.

3. A bond of union among Christians, and public acknowledgmentof
indebtedness to and faith in Christ.
(J. C. Gray.)
The Passoverfeast
E. Stock.
Relate the history of this feast.
I. THE PASSOVER FEAST COMMEMORATEDA GREAT
DELIVERANCE.
1. A deliverance from what? From Egyptian bondage — the destroying angel
— God's judgment upon sin.
2. How was this deliverance effected?
3. Why was this deliverance commemoratedevery year?
II. THE PASSOVER FEAST POINTEDTO A GREATER DELIVERANCE.
1. A deliverance from what? From a worse bondage than that of Egypt, etc.
(John 8:34; Peter 2:19). And from a judgment more terrible than came upon
the first-born (Romans if. 3, 5, 8; Matthew 25:41).

2. How was this greaterdeliverance to be effected? Also by the blood of the
Lamb (1 Peter1:18, 19; Revelation5:8, 9). Who is this Lamb? (John 1:29;
Colossians 1:13, 14;Hebrews 9:12, 14). We must come to Christ and have
heart sprinkled (Hebrews 10:19, 22; 1 Peter1:2). Eachmust have his own sin
put away, etc.
3. How did the yearly feastpoint to this greaterdeliverance? Would show how
deliverance from death could only be by death of another (1 Corinthians 5:7).
III. CHRIST INSTITUTED THE LORD'S SUPPER TO COMMEMORATE
THIS GREATER DELIVERANCE. In the Lord's Supper two things done —
1. We commemorate Christ's death for us.
2. We feed upon Him by faith.
(E. Stock.)
The Lord's Supper
C. Hodge, D. D.
Nature and design.
I. A COMMEMORATION. Includes —(1) Adoration. Adoration due to God
in fashion of a man. It is this that makes Him the centralpoint of the universe,
to whom all eyes are turned.(2) Gratitude. The benefits — deliverance from
hell, power of Satan, and sin; restorationto the favour and fellowshipof God;

fellowship with Christ, including participation with His life and glory. The
costat which these benefits were secured — Christ's humiliation and
suffering.
II. A COMMUNION.
1. An act and means of participation. We participate in His body and blood,
i.e., of their sacrificialvirtue.
2. The effect of this makes us one with Him; one body. Illustration from the
Jewishrites. In this ordinance our union with Christ and with eachother is
far more intimate.
III. CONSECRATION.We cannotcommemorate Christ as our Saviour
without thereby acknowledging ourselvesto be His — the purchase of His
blood, and devoted to His service.
(C. Hodge, D. D.)
The institution and observance ofthe Lord's Supper
B. Noel, M. A.
I. A REMEMBRANCEofthe atonementof Christ.
1. How much He suffered.
2. How well He suffered.

3. How patiently -He suffered.
II. A PROCLAMATION of the atonement of Christ.
III. A PARTICIPATION in the atonement of Christ.
1. Greatfacilities granted.
2. A direct communication from Christ to His people.
(B. Noel, M. A.)
The new wine of the kingdom
J. Parsons.
I. THE WORDS OF THE SAVIOUR AS THEY REGARD THE ACT IN
WHICH HIMSELF AND HIS FOLLOWERS WERE THEN ENGAGED.
They were drinking of "the fruit," or, more properly, "the product" of the
vine. Nota mere ordinary socialcommunion, but in direct connectionwith the
Passover. Christdid not designto honour a Jewishrite as commemorating a
national deliverance, but as typical, holding a relationship to Him and the
economyof which He was the head.
1. That the Lord Jesus led His followers to regard the Passoveras being
representative of His mediatorial sufferings and death.

2. The Saviour led His followers to considerthe Passoveras originating an
ordinance to be perpetuated for important purposes throughout all the ages of
the Christian Church.
II. The words of the Saviour as they regard THE EVENTS HE TAUGHT HIS
FOLLOWERS TO ANTICIPATE,
1. An event of approaching" separation — "I will not henceforth drink of the
fruit of the vine until" a certain period afterwards-named;He and His
disciples were bound to part.
2. An event of ultimate re-union — "When I drink it new with you in My
Father's kingdom."
3. All the followers ofthe Saviour shall be brought to " the Father's
kingdom."
4. The mediation of Jesus Christ, of which the Paschalrite is to be regardedas
a:permanent and symbolical pledge, is of such a nature as to secure that all
those who have possesseda personalinterestin that mediatorial work shall be
brought into a state of glorious redemption in the bright worlds which lie
beyond the grave.
5. The followers of the Saviourshall possess unspeakable andeverlasting joy.
The drinking of wine indicates the fruition of all delight.

6. The pleasures which are to be enjoyed by the followers of the Saviour in the
Father's kingdom are especiallyto be regardedas associatedwith His
presence. How pre-eminently in the New Testamentis the presence ofChrist
setforth as constituting the happiness of the celestialworld(John 12:26).
Learn
(1)How vast and wonderful is the love of Christ to man.
(2)The vastimportance of being numbered amongst the followers of Christ
ourselves.
(J. Parsons.)
The new covenant
Selected.
I. The new covenantof forgiveness andlife. On God's side is pledged
forgiveness, remissionofsins, sustainedacceptance. Onman's side is pledged
the obedience offaith. Christ, as mediator for man, receives God's pledge;
and, as mediator for God, He receives man's pledge. As representative for
man, He offers to God the perfect obedience, and pledges us to a like
obedience;as representative for God, He brings and gives to us forgiveness
and life, pledging God therein.
II. The blood which seals the covenant. The blood represents the yielding or
taking of life.
1. In surrendering His life, Christ sealedour pledge that we will give our life
to God in all holy obedience.

2. In giving His blood, His life, for us, as it were, to eat, He gives us the
strength to keepour pledge.
III. The wine that recalls to mind and renews the covenant. God does not need
to be reminded of His pledge, but frail, forgetful, busy-minded man does.
(Selected.)
Christ's own accountof His blood-shedding
C. J. Brown, D. D.
I. WHOSE BLOOD WAS THIS? " My blood." It is a man, who sits at that
table with others, not an angel. But He is also the living God.
II. BY WHOM WAS THIS BLOOD SHED?
1. Himself, to speak with deepestreverence. JesusshedHis ownblood — was
the offereras well as the sacrifice. He freely laid down His life.
2. In some respects the principal party in this mysterious blood-shedding, even
the holy loving Father, as it is written, "Godspared not His own Son, but
delivered Him up for us all; .... This commandment have I receivedof My
Father;" "The cup which My Father hath given Me."
3. We, believers in Jesus. Our sins were the guilty cause.

III. TO WHAT END AND ISSUE WAS THIS BLOOD-SHEDDING? "For
the remissionof sins." Our Lord singles out from all the benefits of
redemption the remissionof sins, not only because it is that which stands most
intimately relatedto His blood-shedding, but because it is the foundation of
all, carrying the others along with it by necessaryconsequence(Jeremiah
31:33, 34). To what effectas well as design? A sure salvationfor a great
multitude whom no man can number.
(C. J. Brown, D. D.)
Substitution
C. J. Brown, D. D.
Let me mention here a circumstance in the last days of the distinguished Lord
ChancellorLyndhurst, who, at an extreme age, but in full possessionofall his
rare mental powers, was brought to know the Saviour. tie said, "I never used
to be able to understand what these goodpeople meant when they spoke of so
much blood, the blood. But I understand it now; it's just substitution." Ay,
that it is, in one word, "substitution;" "My blood shed for many for the
remissionof sins;" Christ's blood instead of ours; Christ's death for our
eternal death; Christ "made a curse, that we might be redeemed from the
curse of the law." Once, in conversation, my beloved friend, Dr. Duncan,
expressedit thus in his terse way, "A religion of blood is God's appointed
religion for a sinner, for the wagesofsin is death."
(C. J. Brown, D. D.)
COMMENTARIES

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(28) Forthis is my blood of the new testament.—Better, this is My blood of the
Covenant; the best MSS. omitting the word “new” both here and in St. Mark.
It was probably introduced into the later MSS. to bring the text into harmony
with St. Luke’s report. Assuming the word “new” to have been actually
spokenby our Lord, we can understand its being passedover by some
reporters or transcribers whose attentionhad not been speciallycalledto the
greatprophecy of Jeremiah31:31-34. Thatprophecy was, however, certainto
have a prominent place in the minds of those who had come into contact, as
St. Luke must have done, with the line of thought indicated in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (Matthew 8, 9), and therefore we cannot wonder that we find it
in the report of the words given by him (Matthew 22:20) and by St. Paul
(1Corinthians 11:25). If we were to acceptthe other alternative, it would still
be true that the covenantof which our Lord spoke was ipso facto new, and
was therefore that of which Jeremiahhad spoken, and that the insertion of the
word (looking to the generalfreedom of the Gospels in reporting our Lord’s
discourses)was a legitimate way of emphasising that fact.
Dealing with the words, we note (1) that the word “covenant” is everywhere
(with, possibly, the one exceptionof Hebrews 9:16, but see Note there) the best
equivalent for the Greek word. The popular use of the “New Testament” for
the collectedwritings of the apostolic age,makes its employment here and in
the parallelpassagessingularlyinfelicitous. (2) That the “bloodof the
covenant” is obviously a reference to the history of Exodus 24:4-8. The blood
which the Son of Man was about to shed was to be to the true Israel of God
what the blood which Moses had sprinkled on the people had been to the
outward Israel. It was the true “blood of sprinkling” (Hebrews 12:24), and
Jesus was thus the “Mediator” of the New Covenant as Moses hadbeen of the
Old (Galatians 3:19). (3) That so far as this was, in fact or words, the sign of a
new covenant, it turned the thoughts of the disciples to that of which Jeremiah
had spoken. The essenceofthat covenantwas to be the inward working of the
divine law, which had before been brought before the conscience as an
external standard of duty—(“I will put My law in their inward parts,”
Jeremiah31:33)—a truer knowledge ofGod, and through that knowledge the

forgiveness ofiniquity; and all this, they were told, was to be brought about
through the sacrifice ofthe death of Christ.
Which is shed for many.—The participle is, as before, in the present tense—
which is being shed—the immediate future being presentedto them as if it
were actually passing before their eyes. As in Matthew 20:28, our Lord uses
the indefinite “for many,” as equivalent to the universal “for all.” St, Paul’s
language in 1Timothy 2:6 shows, beyondthe shadow of a doubt, how the
words “for many” had been interpreted.
For the remission of sins.—This had been from the outsetthe substance ofthe
gospelwhich our Lord had preached, both to the people collectively(Luke
4:16-19)and to individual souls (Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48). What was new in
the words now was this connectionwith the shedding of His blood as that
which was instrumental in obtaining the forgiveness. Returning, with the
thoughts thus brought together, to the command of Matthew 26:27, “Drink ye
all of it,” we may see, as before in the case ofthe bread, an allusive reference
to the mysterious words of John 6:53-54. In the contrastbetweenthe
“sprinkling” of Exodus 24:6 and the “drinking” here enjoined, we may
legitimately see a symbol, not only of the participation of believers in the life
of Christ, as representedby the blood, but also of the difference betweenthe
outward characterof the Old Covenant and the inward nature of the New. It
is, perhaps, not altogetheroutside the range of associations thus suggestedto
note that to drink togetherof a cup filled with human blood had come to be
regardedas a kind of sacramentof closestand perpetual union, and as such
was chosenby evildoers—as in the case ofCatiline (Sallust, Catil. c. 22)—to
bind their partners in guilt more closelyto themselves. The cup which our
Lord gave His disciples, though filled with wine, was to be to them the pledge
of a union in holiness as deep and true as that which bound others in a league
of evil.

We cannotpass, however, from these words without dwelling for a moment on
their evidential aspect. Foreighteencenturies—without, so far as we can
trace, any interruption, even for a single week—the ChristianChurch, in all
its manifold divisions, under every conceivable variety of form and ritual, has
had its meetings to break bread and to drink wine, not as a socialfeast(from a
very early date, if not from the beginning, the limited quantity of bread and
wine must have excluded that idea), but as a commemorative act. It has
referred its observance to the command thus recorded, and no other
explanation has ever been suggested. Butthis being granted, we have in our
Lord’s words, at the very time when He had spokenof the guilt of the Traitor
and His own approaching death, the proof of a divine prescience. He knew
that His true work was beginning and not ending; that He was giving a
commandment that would last to the end of time; that He had obtained a
greaterhonour than Moses, andwas the Mediatorof a better covenant
(Hebrews 3:3; Hebrews 8:6).
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
26:26-30 This ordinance of the Lord's supper is to us the passoversupper, by
which we commemorate a much greaterdeliverance than that of Israelout of
Egypt. Take, eat;acceptofChrist as he is offeredto you; receive the
atonement, approve of it, submit to his grace and his government. Meat
lookedupon, be the dish ever so well garnished, will not nourish; it must be
fed upon: so must the doctrine of Christ. This is my body; that is, spiritually,
it signifies and represents his body. We partake of the sun, not by having the
sun put into our hands, but the beams of it darted down upon us; so we
partake of Christ by partaking of his grace, and the blessedfruits of the
breaking of his body. The blood of Christ is signified and representedby the
wine. He gave thanks, to teachus to look to God in every part of the
ordinance. This cup he gave to the disciples with a command, Drink ye all of
it. The pardon of sin is that greatblessing which is, in the Lord's supper,
conferredon all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings. He

takes leave of such communion; and assures themof a happy meeting againat
last; Until that day when I drink it new with you, may be understood of the
joys and glories ofthe future state, which the saints shall partake with the
Lord Jesus. Thatwill be the kingdom of his Father; the wine of consolation
will there be always new. While we look at the outward signs of Christ's body
broken and his blood shed for the remission of our sins, let us recollectthat
the feastcosthim as much as though he had literally given his flesh to be eaten
and his blood for us to drink.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
For this is my blood - This "represents" my blood, as the bread does my body.
Luke and Paul vary the expression, adding what Matthew and Mark have
omitted. "This cup is the new testament in my blood." By this cup he meant
the wine in the cup, and not the cup itself. Pointing to it, probably, he said,
"This - 'wine' - represents my blood about to be, shed." The phrase "new
testament" should have been rendered "new covenant," referring to the
"covenantor compact" that God was about to make with people through a
Redeemer. The "old" covenant was that which was made with the Jews by the
sprinkling of the blood of sacrifices.See Exodus 24:8; "And Moses took the
blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the
covenantwhich the Lord hath made with you," etc. In allusion to that, Jesus
says, this cup is the new "covenant" in my blood; that is, which is "ratified,
sealed, orsanctionedby my blood." In ancient times, covenants or contracts
were ratified by slaying an animal; by the shedding of its blood, imprecating
similar vengeance ifeither party failed in the compact. See the notes at
Hebrews 9:16. So Jesus says the covenantwhich God is about to form with
people the new covenant, or the gospeleconomyis sealedorratified with my
blood.
Which is shed for many for the remissionof sins - In order that sins may be
remitted, or forgiven. That is, this is the appointed way by which God will
pardon transgressions. Thatblood is efficacious forthe pardon of sin:

1. Becauseit is "the life" of Jesus, the "blood" being used by the sacred
writers as representing "life itself," or as containing the elements of life,
Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because
it contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When, therefore, Jesus says
that his blood was shedfor many, it is the same as saying that His life was
given for many. See the notes at Romans 3:25.
2. His life was given for sinners, or he died in the place of sinners as their
substitute. By his death on the cross, the death or punishment due to them in
hell may be removed and their souls be saved. He endured so much suffering,
bore so much agony, that God was pleasedto acceptit in the place of the
eternal torments of all the redeemed. The interests of justice, the honor and
stability of his government, would be as secure in saving them in this manner
as if the suffering were inflicted on them personallyin hell. God, by giving his
Son to die for sinners, has shown his infinite abhorrence of sin; since,
according to his view, and therefore according to truth, nothing else would
show its evil nature but the awful sufferings of his ownSon. That he died "in
the steador place" of sinners is abundantly clearfrom the following passages
of Scripture: John 1:29; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 7:27; 1 John 2:2; 1 John
4:10; Isaiah 53:10;Romans 8:32; 2 Corinthians 5:15.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
Mt 26:17-30. Preparationfor and Last Celebrationof the Passover
Announcement of the Traitor, and Institution of the Supper. ( = Mr 14:12-26;
Lu 22:7-23;Joh13:1-3, 10, 11, 18-30).
For the exposition, see on[1362]Lu 22:7-23.
Matthew Poole's Commentary

See Poole on"Matthew 26:30".
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For this is my blood of the New Testament,.... Thatis, the red wine in the cup,
was an emblem and representationof his precious blood, whereby was
exhibited a new dispensation, or administration of the covenantof grace;and
by which it was ratified and confirmed; and whereby all the blessings ofit,
such as peace, pardon, righteousness,and eternallife, come to the people of
God: the allusion is to the first covenant, and the book of it being sprinkled
with the blood of bulls, and therefore calledthe blood of the covenant, Exodus
24:8. But the secondcovenant, or the new administration of the covenantof
grace, forwhich reasonit is calledthe New Testament, is exhibited and
establishedin the blood of Christ the testator. It was usual, even among the
Heathens, to make and confirm their covenants by drinking human blood,
and that sometimes mixed with wine (e),
Which is shed for many, for the remission of sins; that is, was very shortly to
be shed, and since has been, for all the electof God; for the many that were
ordained to eternal life, and the many that were given to Christ, the many that
are justified by him, and the many sons he will bring to glory: whereby the
full forgiveness ofall their sins was procured, in a way consistentwith, and
honourable to the justice of God; full satisfactionbeing made to the law of
God, for all their transgressions,
(e) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 5. c. 3.
Geneva Study Bible
{o} Forthis is my blood of the {p} new testament, which is shed for many for
the remissionof sins.
(o) That is, this cup or wine is my blood sacramentally, as in Geneva Lu 22:20.

(p) Or covenant, that is to say, by which the new league and covenantis made,
for in the making of leagues they used the pouring of wine and shedding of
blood.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 26:28. The death-symbolism is now applied to that which contains
the life (Genesis 9:4 ff., and comp. on Acts 15), viz. the blood, which is
describedas sacrificialbloodthat is to be shed in order to make atonement.
Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament(Hebrews 12:24 not
excepted)can there be any question of the glorified blood of Christ. Comp. on
Matthew 26:26, and on 1 Corinthians 10:16. According to New Testament
ideas, glorified blood is as much a contradictio in adjecto as glorified flesh.
This also in opposition to Hofmann, p. 220.
τοῦτο]this, which ye are about to drink, the wine which is in this cup.
Although this wine was red, it must not be supposed that the point of the
symbolism lay in the colour (Wetstein, Paulus), but in the circumstance ofits
being poured out (see below:τὸ π. πολλ. ἐκχυνόμ.)into the cup; the
outpouring is the symbolicalcorrelative to the breaking in the case ofthe
bread.
γάρ] justifies the πίετε … πάντες, on the ground of the interpretation given to
that which is about to be drunk.
ἐστί] as in Matthew 26:26.

τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης]This is the preferable reading; see the critical
remarks. “This is my blood of the covenant, my covenant blood (‫ַּד‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ַ ‫ְּב‬ ִ ‫,תב‬
Exodus 24:8), my blood which serves to ratify the covenant with God. This is
conceivedof as sacrificialblood (in opposition to Hofmann). See Delitzschon
Hebrews 9:20. In a similar way Mosesratified the covenant with God by
means of the sacrificialblood of an animal, Exodus 24:6 ff. On the double
genitive with only one noun, see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 111 f.; Lobeck, ad
Aj. 309;Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]. For the arrangement of the words, comp.
Thuc. iv. 85. 2 : τῇ τε ἀποκλήσει μου τῶν πυλῶν. The connecting of the μου
with αἷμα corresponds to the τὸ σῶμά μου of Matthew 26:26, as well as to the
amplified form of our Lord’s words as given by Luke and Paul; consequently
we must not, with Rückert, connectthe pronoun with τ. διαθήκης (the blood
of my covenant). The covenantwhich Jesus has in view is that of grace, in
accordancewith Jeremiah31:31 ff., hence called the new one (by Paul and
Luke) in contradistinctionto the old one under the law. See on 1 Corinthians
11:26.
τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυν. εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν]Epexegesisofτὸ αἷμά μου τῆς
διαθήκης, by way of indicating who are to participate in the covenant(περὶ
πολλῶν), the divine benefit conferred upon them (εἰς ἄφες. ἁμαρτ.), and the
means by which the covenantis ratified (ἐκχυνόμ.):which is shed (expressing
as present what, though future, is near and certain)for the benefit of many,
inasmuch as it becomes instrumental in procuring the forgiveness ofsins. The
last part of this statement, and consequently what is implied in it, viz. the
atoning purpose contemplatedby the shedding of blood (comp. Leviticus
17:11), is to be understood as setting forth more preciselythe idea expressed
by περί. It must not be supposed, however, that ὑπέρ, which is used by Luke
instead of περί, is essentiallydifferent from the latter; but is to be
distinguished from it only in respectof the different moral basis on which the
idea containedin it rests (like the German um and über), so that both the
prepositions are often interchangedin caseswhere they have exactly one and
the same reference, as in Demosthenes especially. See generally, on Galatians
1:4; 1 Corinthians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:3.

The shedding of the blood is the objective medium of the forgiveness ofsins;
the subjective medium, viz. faith, is containedby implication in the use made
in this instance, as in Matthew 20:28 (see on the passage),ofπολλῶν, as well
as in the symbolic reference of the πίετε.
It is to be observed, further, that the genuineness ofthe words εἰς ἄφες.
ἁμαρτ. is put beyond all suspicion by the unexceptionable evidence in their
favour (in opposition to David Schulz), although, from their being omitted in
every other record of the institution of the supper (also in Justin, Ap. i. 66, c.
Tr. 70), they should not be regardedas having been originally spokenby
Christ, but as an explanatory addition introduced into the tradition, and put
into the mouth of Jesus.
REMARK 1.
That Jesus meant to institute a regular ordinance to be similarly observedby
His church in all time coming, is not apparent certainly from the narrative in
Matthew and Mark; but it is doubtless to be inferred from 1 Corinthians
11:24-26, no less than from the practice of the apostolic church, that the
apostles were convincedthat such was the intention of our Lord, so much so,
that to the words of the institution themselves was addedthat express
injunction to repeatthe observance εἰς τ. ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν which Paul and
Luke have recorded. As bearing upon this matter, Paul’s declaration:
παρέλαβονἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, Matthew 26:23, is of such decisive importance that
there can no longer be any doubt (Rückert, p. 124 ff.) as to whether Jesus
intended to institute an ordinance for future observance. We cannot,
therefore, endorse the view that the repetition of the observance was due to
the impressionmade upon the minds of the grateful disciples by the first
celebrationof the supper (Paulus, comp. also Weisse,Evangelienfr. p. 195).

REMARK 2.
The two most recentand exhaustive Protestantmonographs treating of the
Lord’s supper on the lines of the Confessions, but also discussing the subject
exegetically, are:Ebrard, das Dogma vom heil. Abendm., Frankf. 1845 f., as
representing the Reformedview, and Kahnis, d. Lehre vom Abendm., Lpz.
1851, as representing the Lutheran. Rückert, on the other hand, d. Abendm.,
s. Wesenu. s. Gesch. (Lpz. 1856), ignores the Confessions altogether, and
proceeds on purely exegeticalprinciples. The result at which Ebrard arrives,
p. 110 (comp. what he says, Olshausen’s Leidensgesch. 1862, p. 103), is as
follows:“The breaking of the bread is a memorial of the death of Jesus;the
eating of the bread thus brokenis a symbolical act denoting that this death is
appropriated by the believer through his fellowship with the life of Christ. But
inasmuch as Jesus gives the bread to be eatenand the wine to be drunk, and
inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the new covenantin
His blood, the bread and the wine are, therefore, not mere symbols, but they
assume that he who partakes ofthem is an actualsharer in the atonement
brought about by the death of Christ. And since such a fellowship with
Christ’s death cannot exist apart from fellowship with His life; since, in other
words,” the new covenant“consists in an actualconnectionand union,—it
follows that partaking of the Lord’s supper involves as its result a true,
personalcentral union and fellowship of life with Christ.” The result at which
Kahnis arrives in his above-citedwork published in 1851[30]is the orthodox
Lutheran view, and is as follows:“The body which Christ gives us to feed
upon in the supper is the same that was broken for us on the cross,—justas its
substratum, the bread, was broken,—witha view to its being eaten. The blood
which Christ gives us to drink in the supper is the same that was shed for us
on the cross,—justas its substratum, the wine, was poured out,—with a view
to its being drunk” (p. 104). He comes back to Luther’s synecdoche in regard
to τοῦτο, which latter he takes as representing the concrete union of two
substances, the one of which, viz. the bread, constitutes the embodiment and
medium of the other (the body); the former he understands to be, logically

speaking, only accidentalin its nature, the essentialsubstance being brought
out in the predicate. As for the secondelement, he considers that it expresses
the identity of the communion blood with the blood of the atoning sacrifice,
and that not in respectof the function, but of the thing itself (for he regards it
as an arbitrary distinction to say that the former blood ratifies, and that the
latter propitiates); and that, accordingly, the reality in point of efficacywhich,
in the words of the institution, is ascribed to the latter necessarilyimplies a
corresponding efficacyin regard to the former.
By adopting the kind of exegesis thathas been employed in establishing the
strictly Lutheran view, it would not be difficult to make out a case in favour of
that doctrine of transubstantiation and the mass which is still keenlybut
awkwardlymaintained by Schegg, andwhich finds an abler but no less
arbitrary and mistakenadvocate in Döllinger(Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 37
ff., 248 ff., ed. 2), because in both casesthe results are based upon the
application of the exegeticalmethod to dogmatic premises.
Then, in the lastplace, Rückertarrives at the conclusionthat, as far as
Matthew and Mark are concerned, the whole stress is intended to be laid upon
the actions, that these are to be understood symbolically, and that the words
spokenserve only as hints to enable us to interpret the actions aright. He
thinks that the idea of an actual eating of the body or drinking of the blood
never crossedthe mind either of Jesus or of the disciples;that it was Paul
who, in speculating as to the meaning of the material substances, beganto
attachto them a higher importance, and to entertain the view that in the
supper worthy and unworthy alike were partakers ofthe body and blood of
Christ in the supersensualand heavenly form in which he conceivedthem to
exist subsequent to the Lord’s ascension. In this way, according to Rückert,
Paul entered upon a line of interpretation for which sufficient justification
cannot be found either in what was done or in what was spokenby our Lord,
so that his view has furnished the germs of a version of the matter which, so

far at leastas its beneficial results are concerned, does not tell in his favour (p.
242). In answerto Rückertin reference to Paul, see on 1 Corinthians 10:16.
[30] In his Dogmatik, however(1861), I. pp. 516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis
candidly acknowledgesthe shortcomings of the Lutheran view, and the
necessityofcorrecting them, and manifests, at the same time, a decided
leaning in the direction of the Reformeddoctrine. The supper, he says, “is the
medium, of imparting to the believing communicant, in bread and wine, the
atoning efficacyof the body and blood of Christ that have been sacrificedfor
us, which atoning efficacyplaces him to whom it is imparted in mysterious
fellowship with the body of Christ.” Kahnis now rejects, in particular, the
Lutheran synecdoche and approves of the symbolical interpretation in so far
as bread and wine, being symbols of Christ’s body and blood, constitute, in
virtue of the act of institution, that sacramentalwordconcerning our Lord’s
body and blood which when emitted by Christ has the effectof conveying the
benefits of His death. He expresses himselfmore clearly in II. p. 557, where he
says:“The Lord’s supper is the sacramentof the altar which, in the form of
bread and wine, the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which have been
sacrificedfor us, imparts to the believing communicant the sin-forgiving
efficacyof Christ’s death.” Those divinely-appointed symbols he regards as
the visible word concerning Christ’s body and blood, which word, as the
terms of the institution indicate, is the medium through which the atoning
powerof His death, i.e. the forgiveness ofsins, is communicated. From the
bread and wine Christ is supposedto create a eucharistic corporeality, which
He employs as the medium for the communication of Himself.
REMARK 3.
As for the different versions of the words of the institution that are to be met
with in the four evangelists,that of Mark is the most concise (Matthew’s
coming next), and, considering the situation (for when the mind is full and

deeply moved the words are few) and the connectionof this evangelistwith
Peter, it is to be regardedas the most original. Yet the supplementary
statements furnished by the others are serviceable in the way of exposition, for
they let us see whatview was takenof the nature of the Lord’s supper in the
apostolic age, as is pre-eminently the case with regard to the τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς
τ. ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν of Paul and Luke. Comp. on Luke 22:19. According to
Gess, I. p. 147, the variations in question are to be accountedfor by supposing
that, while the elements were circulating, Jesus Himself made use of a variety
of expressions. But there canbe no doubt that on an occasionof such painful
emotion He would utter the few thoughtful words He made use of only once
for all. This is the only view that can be said to be in keeping with the sad and
sacrednature of the situation, especiallyas the texts do not lead us to suppose
that there was any further speaking;comp., in particular, Mark 14:23-24.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 26:28. τὸ αἷμά μου:the very colourof the wine suggestive;hence
calledαἷμα σταφυλῆς in Deuteronomy 32:14;my blood, pointing to the
passion, like the breaking of the bread.—τῆς διαθήκης (forthe two gen. μου τ.
δ. dependent on αἷμα, vide Winer, 30, 3, 3), the blood of me, of the covenant.
The introduction of the idea appropriate to the circumstances:dying men
make wills (διατίθενται οἱ ἀποθνήσκοντες, Euthy.). The epithet καινῆς in T.
R. is superfluous, because involved in the idea. The covenantof course is new.
It is Jeremiah’s new covenantcome at last. The blood of the covenantsuggests
an analogybetweenit and the covenantwith Israelratified by sacrifice
(Exodus 24:8).—τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον:the shedding for many suggests
sacrificialanalogies;the presentparticiple vividly conceives that which is
about to happen as now happening; περὶ πολλῶν is an echo of ἀντὶ πολλῶν in
Matthew 20:28.—εἰς ἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν:not in Mk., and may be a comment on
Christ’s words, supplied by Mt.; but it is a true comment. Forwhat else could
the blood be shed according to Levitical analogies andeven Jeremiah’s new
covenant, which includes among its blessings the complete forgiveness ofsin?
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges

28. this is my blood] The blood of the sacrifice was the sealand assurance of
the old covenant, so wine is the sealof the new covenant, under which there is
no shedding of blood.
new testament] The word “new” is omitted in the most ancient MSS. here and
in Mark.
testament] The Greek word means either (1) a “covenant,” “contract,” or(2)
“a will.” The first is the preferable sense here, as in most passageswhere the
word occurs in N.T. the new covenant is contrastedwith “the covenantwhich
God made with our fathers,” Acts 3:25. It need hardly be remarked that the
title of the New Testamentis derived from this passage.
for many] i. e. to save many; “for” is used in the sense ofdying for one’s
country.
many] See note ch. Matthew 20:28.
for the remission of sins] “For” here marks the intention, “in order that there
may be remission of sins.” These words are in Matthew only.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 26:28. Τοῦτο, this) The true blood of Christ is shownto be actually
present, just as the blood of the victims was in the Mosaic formula cited in
Hebrews 9:20; for that formula is here referred to.—τῆς καινῆς, ofthe New)
in contradistinction to the Old: see Exodus 24:8, sc. “And Mosestook the
blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said “Beholdthe blood of the
covenant,” etc.—διαθήκης,testament, disposition, dispensation)Many
theologians ofthe ReformedChurch, and some even of the Evangelical

communion,[1135]endeavouredin the lastgenerationto reduce the whole
scheme of Christian doctrine to the form of a covenant:a method pre-
eminently suited to the Jewishtheology;but Scripture expressesthe New
divine economy in this case,as it is wont in other cases,by a word belonging to
the Old scheme, although employed in a sense notexactly coinciding with its
original meaning: nor can we easilyspeak of the NEW, διαθήκη,or
Dispensation(Dispositio), exceptin contrastto the Old, either expressedor
implied. In short, the very words ‫ב‬ ַּ‫ד‬ and ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ [by which the Old and
New Dispensationare severallyindicated] differ from eachother, and their
difference corresponds wonderfully with the actual state of the case.Forthe
word ‫ב‬ ַּ‫ד‬ accords more with the Old economy, which had the form of a
covenant, whereas διαθήκηaccords more with the New economy, which has
the form of a testament; on which accountthe Talmudists employ the Greek
word ‫ַּקַּדַַּּד‬ [ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ, written in Hebrew characters]as not having a
Hebrew word whereby to express it. But the idea of a covenant does not so
well agree with that entire son-ship which exists under the New Testament
dispensation. Even the very notion of a testament, will at last, as it were, come
to an end, on accountof our intimate union with God: see John17:21-22, and
1 Corinthians 15:28.—ΠΟΛΛῶΝ, many) even beyond the limits of Israel.—
ἐκχυνόμενον, which is being shed) The present tense. There is the same
potency in the Holy Supper, as if in that self-same moment the body of Christ
was always being given, and His blood being shed.—ἌΦΕΣΙΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ,
remissionof sins) the especialblessing ofthe New Testamentdispensation.
[Ephesians 1:7, E. B.]
[1135]In Bengel, Reformed= Calvinistic: Evangelical= Lutheran.—(I. B.)
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 28. - For. Yes, drink ye all hereof, for it is unspeakablyprecious. This
(τοῦτο, as before, ver. 26)is my blood. This which I here give you. The blood
separatedfrom the body represents Christ's death by violence;it was also the
sign of the ratification of a covenant. Of the new testament; διαθήκης:
covenant. The adjective"new"is omitted by some goodmanuscripts and

modern editors, but it gives the sense intended. The Vulgate has, novi
testamenti. The old covenantbetweenGod and his people had been ratified at
Sinai by the blood of many victims (Exodus 24:5-8;Hebrews 8:8-13;Hebrews
9:15, etc.);the blood of Christ shed upon the cross ratifies "the new or
Christian covenant to the world and the Church, and the same blood
sacramentallyapplied ratifies the covenantindividually to eachChristian"
(Sadler). The evangelicalcovenantsupersedes the Judaic, even as the sacrifice
of Christ fulfils and supersedes the Levitical sacrifices. Whichis shed (is being
shed) for many. The Vulgate has effundetur, in reference to the crucifixion of
the morrow; but this is tampering with the text. Rather, by using the present
tense, the Lord signifies that his death is certain - that the sacrifice has
already begun, that the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"
(Revelation13:8) was now offering the eternal sacrifice. The whole ordinance
is significant of the completionof the atonement. "Many" here is equivalent to
"all." Redemption is universal, though all men do not acceptthe offer (see on
ch. 20:28). Even Calvin says, "Nonpartem mundi tantum designat, sedtotum
humanum genus." Forthe remission of sins. "Forwithout shedding of blood
is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22); "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son,
cleansethus from all sin (1 John 1:7). The sacrifices ofthe Law, the blood of
bulls and goats, couldnot take awaysin; at most they gave a ritual and
ceremonialpurification. But what the Mosaic Law could not effectwas
accomplishedby the precious blood of Christ, who offered himself a spotless
and perfectVictim unto God. This is our Lord's most complete announcement
of the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice, whichis appropriated by faith in
the receptionof his precious blood. St. Paul adds, "This do ye (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε),
as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me [εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, 'for my
commemoration']." These were, ofcourse, Christ's words spokenat the time,
and are of most important bearing on what is calledthe sacrificialaspectof
the Holy Eucharist.
Vincent's Word Studies
Testament(διαθήκης)
From διατίθημι, to distribute; dispose of. Hence of the dispositionof one's
property. On the idea of disposing or arranging is basedthat of settlement or

agreement, and thence of a covenant. The Hebrew word of which this is a
translation is primarily covenant, from a verb meaning to cut. Hence the
phrase, to make a covenant, in connectionwith dividing the victims slain in
ratification of covenants (Genesis 15:9-18). Covenantis the generalOld
Testamentsense ofthe word (1 Kings 20:34; Isaiah28:15; 1 Samuel 18:3); and
so in the New Testament. Compare Mark 14:24;Luke 1:72; Luke 22:20;Acts
3:25; Acts 7:8. Bishop Lightfoot, on Galatians 3:15, observes that the word is
never found in the New Testamentin any other sense than that of covenant,
with the exceptionof Hebrews 9:15-17, where it is testament. We cannot
admit this exception, since we regardthat passageas one of the best
illustrations of the sense ofcovenant. See on Hebrews 9:15-17. Render here as
Rev., covenant.
Is shed (ἐκχυννόμενον)
The present participle, is being shed. Christ's thought goes forwardto the
consummation.
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
WILLIAM BARCLAY
His Body And His Blood (Matthew 26:26-30)
26:26-30 While they were eating, Jesus took breadand blessedit and broke it,
and gave it to his disciples and said, "Take,eat;this is my body." Then he

took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them. "Drink all of
you from it," he said, "for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many, that their sins may be forgiven. I tell you that from now
on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new
with you in the Kingdom of my Father." And when they had sung a hymn,
they went out to the Mount of Olives.
We have alreadyseenhow the prophets, when they wished to saysomething in
a way that people could not fail to understand, made use of symbolic actions.
We have alreadyseenJesus using that method both in his Triumphal Entry
and in the incident of the fig tree. That is what Jesus is doing here. All the
symbolism and all the ritual actionof the PassoverFeastwas a picture of what
he wished to say to men, for it was a picture of what he was to do for men.
What then was the picture which Jesus was using, and what is the truth which
lies behind it?
(i) The PassoverFeastwas a commemorationof deliverance;its whole
intention was to remind the people of Israel of how God had liberated them
from slavery in Egypt. First and foremostthen, Jesus claimedto be the great
liberator. He came to liberate men from fearand from sin. He liberates men
from the fears which haunt them and from the sins which will not let them go.
(ii) In particular the PassoverLamb was the symbol of safety. On that night of
destruction it was the blood of the PassoverLamb which kept Israel safe. So,
then, Jesus was claiming to be Saviour. He had come to save men from their
sins and from their consequences.He had come to give men safety on earth
and safetyin heaven, safety in time and safetyin eternity.
There is a word here which is a key word and enshrines the whole of Jesus'
work and intention. It is the word covenant. Jesus spoke ofhis blood being the

blood of the covenant. What did he mean by that? A covenantis a relationship
betweentwo people;but the covenantof which Jesus spokewas not between
man and man; it was betweenGod and man. That is to say, it was a new
relationship betweenGod and man. What Jesus was saying atthe Last Supper
was this: "Becauseofmy life, and above all because ofmy death, a new
relationship has become possible betweenyou and God." It is as if he said,
"You have seenme; and in me you have seenGod; I have told you, I have
shown you, how much God loves you; he loves you even enough to suffer this
that I am going through; that is what God is like." Becauseofwhat Jesus did,
the wayfor men is open to all the loveliness of this new relationship with God.
This passageconcludes by saying that, when the company of Jesus and the
disciples had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. An essential
part of the Passoverritual was the singing of the Hallel. Hallel means Praise
God! And the Hallel consistedof Psalms 113:1-9;Psalms 114:1-8;Psalms
115:1-18;Psalms 116:1-19;Psalms 117:1-2;Psalms 118:1-29, whichare all
praising psalms. At different points of the PassoverFeastthese psalms were
sung in sections;and at the very end there was sung The Great Hallel, which
is Psalms 136:1-26 . That was the hymn they sang before they went out to the
Mount of Olives.
Here is another thing to note. There was one basic difference betweenthe Last
Supper and the Sacramentwhich we observe. The Last Supper was a real
meal; it was, in fact, the law that the whole lamb and everything else must be
eatenand nothing left. This was no eating of a cube of bread and drinking of a
sip of wine. It was a meal for hungry men. We might well say that what Jesus
is teaching men is not only to assemble in church and eat a ritual and symbolic
Feast;he is telling them that every time they sit down to eat a meal, that meal
is in memory of him. Jesus is not only Lord of the Communion Table; he must
be Lord of the dinner table, too.

There remains one final thing. Jesus says that he will not feastwith his
disciples againuntil he does so in his Father's Kingdom. Here, indeed, is
divine faith and divine optimism. Jesus was going out to Gethsemane, outto
trial before the Sanhedrin, out to the Cross--andyet he is still thinking in
terms of a Kingdom. To Jesus the Cross was neverdefeat; it was the way to
glory. He was on his way to Calvary, but he was also on his way to a throne.
BRIAN BELL
INSTITUTION (26-30)[Lord’s Supper. Communion. Lord’s Table. Breaking
of Bread. Eucharist]
A. Bread& wine were 2 common items that were used at practically every
meal, but Jesus
gave them a wonderful new meaning. Now as memorials of His death.
1. Every detail of the Passoverpointed to that great day of Israel’s deliverance
from Egypt. Now, Jesus will redirect the details to Himself & to His
deliverance
of the world from sin.
a) When you do this again, do it in memory of Me and not of the lamb slain in
Egypt.
2. This is the Original Value Meal...andwhata value He placedon it :)
B. Lets look at these 6 things about communion:
C. Slide17a It’s Historical:Mt, Mark, Lk, John. From the earliestchurch
records the church
started observing this. Jesus Himself is the origin of the Lord Supper. He
commanded

that if be continued. And He is the focus and contentof it.
D. Slide17bIt’s Familial: The Lord’s Supper is an actof the gatheredfamily
of those who
believe in Jesus, the church. Though it’s not an act for unbelievers, they
should be present
and welcomed. As I said earlier it is not to be secretive. It’s about
proclamation not privacy.
E. Slide17c It’s Physical:it is not the consumption of a 7 course meal. It is
very simple.
We should not use playful substitutes (i.e. Oreo cookie & Coca-Cola)we
should celebrate it
with a sense ofweightiness.
F. Slide18a Bread:Note, He didn’t take the PassoverLamb, but bread &
wine. Thus He was
instituting a feast, not a sacrifice.
1. 1 Cor.5:7,8 Forindeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificedfor us.
Therefore
let us keepthe feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
2. Slide18bBroke it, gave it to them – Bread broken/Christ for us. Bread
eaten/
Christ in us. Breadpartakentogether/Christ among us.
G. Slide19 Cup: The Passoverrequires 4 cups of wine (2 before the meal, 2
after) [Ex.6:6,7]
1. The cup of Sanctification(kiddush) [separationfrom all other common
meals]

2. The cup of Deliverance/salvation(makkot)[Delfrom Egypt. Explaining/
Proclaiming]
4
3. The cup of Redemption (ha-geulah) [symbolized blood of passover
lamb/now
Jesus’]
a) This cup is the cup of wine lifted at communion, commemorating God’s
redemption of His people. This was Jesus establishing His New Cov [a sacred
binding contract]in His own blood.
4. The cup of Praise/hope/expectation(hallel) [took place during the hallel,
hymn]
a) This cup is the cup of wine that Jesus refusedto drink from until the
coming of His Father’s Kingdom.
5. Going back to the The 3rd cup...Redemption...
a) Old covenant(Sinai) ratified w/the blood of animals sacrifices.
New covenantwas ratified by His blood.
b) Slide20a RattlesnakeCommunion: Old Cov coveredour sin. New Cov puts
it away
(1) Heb.9:26 now, once at the end of the ages, He has appearedto put
awaysin by the sacrifice ofHimself.
(2) Slide20b The Old Law was like covering a rattlesnake w/a trashcan lid.
The New Cov is like taking his venom out…he can still bite, but it’s no
longerdeadly.

c) A venomoid is a venomous snake that has undergone a surgicalprocedure
to
remove or inhibit the production of snake venom.
(1) Slide21 It’s a Venomoid Communion :)
6. Gave thanks (27) - Thanksgiving is the expressionofJoy God-ward.
7. This is My blood (28) - Biblical covenants were always ratified by shed
blood.
H. Slide22a It’s Mental: Do this in remembrance of me...Rememberwhat?
1. Normally we celebrate someone’s Birthday not their Death-day.
a) Death-days are often difficult days to remember.
2. As we do the physical actof eating and drinking, we are to do the mental
active remembering.
3. How does the Lord’s Supper help us to remember Him?
5
a) It makes us come to a restful halt in our pilgrimage. It gives us a graphic
picture
of salvation. It reminds us of the reassuring promise of His Grace. It remains
clearprophecy of the future.
4. Rememberwhat? that He truly was a GoodMan, a GreatSavior, a Loving
Friend, a Living Hope, & a Coming Lord.
5. RememberHim in sicknessthat you might have patience.
6. RememberHim in persecutionthat you might have gentleness.
7. RememberHim in your service that you remember His burning zeal in His.
8. RememberHim in times of solitude as you remember His midnight prayers.

9. RememberHim so He becomes our pattern that we might be the
reproduction
of Himself, & thus become the best memorial of Him.
a) So it’s about Remembering. Not imagining. Not dreaming. Notchanneling.
Not
listening. Not going into neutral. It’s a consciousdirecting of the mind back in
history to Jesus and what He did, in the bible, in history. Breadand cup. Body
and
blood. Execution and death. (Piper)
I. Slide22bIt’s Spiritual: unbelievers can do everything we’ve named so far.
Eat, drink,
remember. There must be something more. There is. 1 Cor.10:16-18The cup
of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread
which we
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though
many, are one
bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. 18 Observe Israel
after the
flesh: Are not those who eatof the sacrifices partakers ofthe altar?
[communion = sharing/
fellowship/participation/koinonia]
1. These believers trust & treasure Jesus Christ. Paul says they’re
participating
in the body and blood of Christ. They are experiencing a sharing/koinonia in
His body & blood. They are experiencing a partnership in His death, by faith.

2. As the Jews (18) sharedin or benefited from what happened on the altar.
So we, enjoy forgiveness andrestoredfellowship with God in communion.
3. When we celebrate the Lord supper, we feastspiritually by faith on all the
promises of God bought by the blood of Jesus. No unbeliever cando that.
J. Slide22c It’s Sacred:believers are warned not to take communion in a
cavalier, callous, or
carelessway.
6
1. Notour goalto exclude anyone. Each persondecides for himself.
2. This is not the EpiscopalTable, nor the BaptistTable, nor the Calvary
Table,
but the Lord’s Table.
3. Slide23a Examine yourself. Q:Can you be more-bad than God is
good?don’tthink so
4. You canonly sin as a man, but God can forgive as God.
5. You sin as a finite creature but the Lord forgives as the infinite Creator.
6. Confess your sin to Him - For I will forgive their iniquity, & their sin I will
remember no more. Jer.31:34
K. Slide23b(29) The supper ends on a note of Hope...until that day when I
drink it new with
you in My Father’s Kingdom.
1. Jesus was sure of 2 things: He was to die & His kingdom was to come.
a) He was certainof His cross & certain of His glory.
b) He was certainof the Love of His Father & certainof man’s sin.

c) He was certainthat in the end that love would conquer sin.
L. Do Communion:
M.In Lk.22:15 Jesus saidto his disciples, With fervent desire I have desired to
eat
this Passoverwith you before I suffer.
1. He desired to eat it with them. Even though His body was about to be
broken,
His blood shed, His heart grieved. And 1 was about to betray Him, 1 about to
deny Him, & all about to forsake Him.
2. He desires to eat it with you. Even though you’ve betrayed Him...& will
again.
Even though you’ve grieved Him...& will again. Even though you’ve broken
his heart...& will again...He desires to eatwith you...oh what a love!
N. If you ever feelunworthy to come to His table, then just make sure you
bring your sin w/
you to the table.
1. Sin gives us a right to Christ. He is a Saviorfrom sin. It is as sinners we can
sit at the table to begin with. Sin is the handle by which I can take hold of
Christ.
O. *(30)Sung a hymn - Imagine the Lord singing when the cross was onlya
few hours away
1. Jesus sings praise to His Father In the face of rejection& suffering & death.

JOHN BROADUS
Matthew 26:26-30. The Lord's Supper
Mark 14:23-26, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.
John gives no accountof the institution of the Lord's Supper. Paul says, "I
have receivedof the Lord," and judging from his similar expressions
elsewhere,we understand him to mean by direct revelation, which would
make this an independent account. It resembles that of his companion
Luke,(1) and Matt. and Mark form another pair. The place is an upper room
in the house of some friend (Matthew 26:18), and the time apparently some
hours after sunset, on the evening before the crucifixion. As they were eating,
compare Matthew 26:21; this is the secondthing described as occurring in the
course of the meal; so Mark 14:18, Mark 14:22. Jesus took bread, or a loaf
(Rev. Ver. margin); the common Greek text has an article, but wrongly. The
word is singular in all four accounts. It is sometimes employed collectivelyfor
bread in general, (Matthew 4:4, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 15:2, Matthew 15:16)
but more commonly for a loaf or cake ofbread (Matthew 4:3, Matthew 12:4,
Matthew 14:17, Matthew 14:19, Matthew 15:33 ff.; Matthew 16:5-11), and
probably so here. This is more likely to have been what we should call a cake
than a loaf (see Smith's "Dict.," Bread);such fiat cakesthe Jews atJerusalem
now eatat the passover. It was unleavened, of course, as required by the law
at the passover;(Exodus 12:15, Exodus 13:3, Exodus 13:7, Deuteronomy 16:3)
but our Lord makes no reference to this, and it is not wise to insist on using
only unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper. And blessed, naturally means
blessedthe loaf, that being the object of the preceding and the two following
verbs. Luke and Paul, however, have 'gave thanks' viz., to God, as below,
Mark 14:27; (2) and so some would here understand it to mean blessedGod.
But in Luke 9:16 it is distinctly 'he blessedthem,' viz., the loaves and fishes.
This shows that the idea of blessing the loaf is not repugnant to Scripture, and
as the connectionnaturally indicates that idea here, it should be preferred.
Compare 1 Corinthians 10:16, "The cup of blessing which we bless." To bless

a loaf is of course to invoke God's blessing upon it, to ask that God will make
it a means of blessing to those who partake. And brake it. Hence the
observance ofthis ordinance came to be described as 'the breaking of bread.' (
Acts 2:42, Acts 2:46, Acts 20:7; compare 1 Corinthians 10:16) And gave, is
according to the most probable Greek text(3) in the imperfect tense, which
may mean that he went on giving, himself breaking a piece for eachone, to be
passedon to those out of his reach;while as to the cup it is aorist, since he
simply gave the cup, and they passedit to eachother. But the imperfect in
such a case might only describe him as engagedin giving, and so would not
substantially differ from the aorist. Take, eat. Mark has simply 'take';Luke
and Paul in Rev. Ver. have neither. This is my body. 'This' is neuter, while the
masculine would be needed to agree with 'bread'; it means, this object
represents my body. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:24, Rev. Ver.) has 'This is my
body, which is for you,' where 'broken' was early inserted, probably suggested
by 1 Corinthians 10:16. The phrase current among us, "brokenfor you," is
thus not a Scripture expression. 'That is for you' means 'for your benefit;' we
should lovingly take what represents the body that is for us. Luke, Rev. Ver.,
has 'this is my body which is given for you,' which amounts to the same thing.
Weiss:"Notas a dark fatality were they to regardthe death which he was
now to meet, but as the way by which God would make them sharers in his
greatestgift of salvation;and that gift was not to be for mere contemplative
purposes:but for personalappropriation."
Four different views as to the meaning of the phrase, 'this is my body,' now
prevail in the Christian world. Two of them take the expressionliterally, the
others figuratively. (1) Transubstantiation, which represents the Roman
Catholic view, mean that the bread ceasesto be bread, and its substance is
changedinto the substance of the glorified body of Christ. This notion arose
from combining the expressionbefore us with John 6:48-58, the images there
used being taken literally. In Justin Martyr," 1 Apol." 66, Irenaeus, 4, 18, 5,
and even in Ignatius, Sin. 6, are expressions which do not in fact mean
transubstantiation or read presence, but which tend in that direction, and
doubtless helped to prepare the way for the doctrine subsequently developed.
There is nothing of the sort in the "Didache." The questionneed not be here

argued. The language seems evidently figurative, as in "I am the door," "I am
the vine," "and the rock was Christ," "the field is the world," etc. We must
remember that in Hebrew or Aramaic the copula 'is' would not be expressed
at all. (2) Consubstantiation, the term invented by Luther, and still used by
some of his followers, means that with the unchanged substance ofthe bread
is united the substance of the glorified body of Christ. Luther : "Whatis now
the sacramentofthe altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord
Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are through
Christ's word commanded to eatand to drink... but how the body is in the
bread, we know not." His followers have compared it to iron, with heat
superadded, or more recently to iron magnetized. But the whole notion is
obviously a mere makeshiftof persons unwilling to give up the literal sense of
'is,' and the mystical notion of Christ's real presence. And how could the
glorified body be invisibly dwelling in the bread, and the blood of that same
glorified body be separatelydwelling in the wine? They could be symbolized
separately, but how could they exist separately? (Compare Meyer.)(3) The
view of Calvin, now held by Presbyterians, Methodists, andmany
Episcopalians, appears to be that to the partaking of the bread is attachedby
divine appointment a specialspiritual blessing, which is receivedby all who
take the bread in faith, and which cannot be had without taking it. Hence,
they sometimes feelaggrievedthat other Christians who do not invite them to
partake of the bread and wine are denying them the opportunity of a spiritual
blessing, not to be otherwise enjoyedat that time. Some High Churchmen
have recededfrom the Calvinian view, and maintain the "RealPresence" of
Christ in the Sacrament, without undertaking to explain in what way or in
what sense it exists. (4) The view of Zwingli, now almost universally held by
Baptists, is that the bread is simply appointed as the symbol or memento,
which we take in remembrance of the Saviour's body, and that the natural
effectof such a memento or symbol in vividly reminding of the Saviour, and
kindling grateful affectiontoward him, is blessedto the devout participant. A
memento of the departed may be a very simple thing, and yet deeply move the
heart. But the blessing thus receivedis not supposedto be essentiallydifferent
in kind from other spiritual blessings, orto be associatedby mere divine
appointment with this particular means of grace. Hence no spiritual loss is
necessarilyinflicted by failing to invite to this ceremony persons who have

made a credible oral professionof faith, but have not yet submitted to the
prerequisite ceremony.
Matthew 26:27. Took the cup; a cup, is the correcttext in Matthew and Mark,
while it is 'the cup' in Luke and Paul. There was a cup on the table for
drinking wine according to the customof the paschalmeal; 'a cup' does not
say there were others. The paschalwine was usually mixed with a double
quantity of water (Edersheim). Gave thanks. From the Greek wordthus
translated comes 'the Eucharist,'i. e., 'the Thanksgiving,'as a phrase for
taking the bread and wine. It is used by Ignatius and the "Didache" to denote
the taking of bread and wine in connectionwith an agape, or'love feast',
(Judges 1:12) just as Paul seems to use his phrase 'the Lord's Supper.' (1
Corinthians 11:20) But the connectionwith a regularmeal in common is not
made a duty by Paul, nor the connectionwith the passoverby our Lord. What
he directs is not to eatthe passover, orto eat a supper, not to eat in the
evening, or at a table, or in a reclining posture, but to eat bread and drink
wine. Protestants unite in declaiming againstthe Romish practice of
withholding the wine from the laity, because the Saviour enjoined both the
eating and the drinking; and exactly what the Saviour enjoined we should do.
So as to baptism, there is no command to baptize "in living water," as the
"Didache" declarespreferable, orin any particular place, time,
circumstances, ormanner; the thing enjoined is to baptize, (Matthew 28:19)
viz., in water, (Matthew 3:11) and we should insist on nothing but waterand
the baptizing. (Compare on Matthew 3:6) Drink ye all of it, It would seem
unnecessaryto say that this means all of you, and not all of it, as the Greek
places beyond question; yet some have misunderstood. Mark records, not the
command, but the performance, 'and they all drank of it.' For, what follows
being a reasonfor drinking. This is my blood, i. e., this wine represents my
blood, like 'this is my body.' Of the new covenant; the correctreading here,(1)
and in Mark, does not contain"new." It was added by copyists from Luke
and Paul. (Compare Jeremiah31:31, Hebrews 8:8)(2) Moses atMount Sinai
"took the book of the covenantand read in the audience of the people," and
they promised to obey. Then he "took the blood "of oxen just slain," and
sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant."

(Exodus 24:3-8 compare Hebrews 9:19 f.) So the new covenant predicted by
Jeremiah31:31-35 is about to he ratified by the Saviour's own blood as the
"blood of the covenant." (Compare Hebrews 10:29, Hebrews 13:20)For
world-wide symbolism of blood as sealing a covenant, and its participation as
denoting vital union, see Trumbull: "The BloodCovenant," especiallyp. 271-
286. Which is shed, present tense (in Mark also), expressing what is near and
certain, on the point of taking place, like 'is delivered,' Matthew 26:2, Rev.
Ver., and 'I keep,'Matthew 26:18, Rev. Ver. For many, so Mark. In Luke, if
Matthew 26:20 be genuine, it is 'for you.' The 'many' (compare Matthew
20:28)is simply a generalexpression(probably derived from Isaiah 53:12, "he
bare the sin of many," compare Isaiah52:15), not necessarilyindicating that
some are omitted. In one sense, Jesus "gave himselfa ransom for all", (1
Timothy 2:6) and to "taste death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9; compare 1
John 2:2), making salvation objectivelypossible for all; in another sense, his
atoning death definitely contemplatedthe salvationof the elect. Euthym.
understands that whereas the blood of the sacrificeswas shedfor Jews only, i.
e., few, this blood is shed for many, i. e., for Gentiles also. The preposition
here rendered 'for' means 'concerning'(peri), and so 'for the benefit of,' as in
John 16:26, John 17:9, John 17:20, Hebrews 5:3, Hebrews 11:40. This
preposition would not of itself suggestthe idea of substitution. That idea
would be readily, though not necessarily, suggestedby Mark 14:24, hyper
(which copyists easilychangedby assimilationto Matthew and so the common
Greek text of Mark has peri); and substitution is necessarilythe meaning of
anti, see on "Matthew 20:28". For, or unto, remissionof sins, in order that
sins may be remitted. (Hebrews 9:22) This is the natural and most probable
meaning of the preposition and its case, andis here entirely appropriate.
(Compare on Matthew 3:11) The bread and wine symbolize objectively the
Saviour's body and blood; our eating and drinking these symbolizes our
personalunion with Christ, and feeding our spiritual nature upon him; and
our doing this togetherwith others will, from the nature of the case,like any
other action in common, promote Christian fellowship and unity where these
already exist. Yet this last is a subordinate and incidental effectof the
ceremony, and the presence of some in whose piety we lack confidence should
not prevent our eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of
Christ. The Lord's Supper is often called"the Communion," through a

misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 10:16, where the word communion really
means 'participation,' as in Rev. Ver., margin. This wrong name for the
ordinance has often proved very misleading. (See T. G. Jones, "The Great
Misnomer," Nashville, Tenn.) Few have everquestioned that the apostles had
all been baptized before this ordinance was established;some urge that being
the baptism of John, this was not Christian baptism, and so they curiously
infer that Christian baptism is not a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. But if
John's baptism was essentiallydistinct from Christian baptism, then how as to
the baptism administered by Christ himself, (John 3:22, John 3:26) i. e.,
through his disciples, (John 4:1 f.) at the same time with John, and upon the
same generalteaching? (Mark 1:15) If the baptism performed by Christ was
not Christian baptism, then what was it? (Compare on Matthew 11:11)
RICH CATHERS
Matthew 26:26-29
Thursday Evening Bible Study
June 7, 2007
Introduction
We are in the night that Jesus will be betrayed. We are in the middle of the
meal known as “The Last Supper”.
:26-29 Communion

:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessedand broke it, and gave
it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat;this is My body."
this is My body – What does Jesus meanby this?
There has been a lot of discussionabout this over the centuries.
The Catholic church teaches thatwhen an officialordained priest says the
right words, that the bread turns into the real, literal flesh of Jesus Christand
the wine turns into the real blood of Jesus.
They believe this so much that when they are finished with the “Eucharist”
and there are leftovers, they have a specialway of disposing of the leftovers
since they have actualflesh and blood in front of them.
What does the Bible say?
1. Fleshversus Spirit
After Jesus fed the five thousand, He gave a very disturbing teaching. He
begantop tell them that He was the “Breadof Life” (John 6:35) and what that
meant. This is a passagethat the Catholic church will often refer to, but pay
attention to what it says.
(John 6:53-56 NKJV) Then Jesus saidto them, "Mostassuredly, I say to you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no
life in you. {54} "Whoevereats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life,
and I will raise him up at the lastday. {55} "ForMy flesh is foodindeed, and
My blood is drink indeed. {56} "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood
abides in Me, and I in him.
Some of the people were quite confused. It sounded like some kind of
cannibalism. Some of those who were following Jesus didn’t follow Him any
more because ofthis (John 6:66).
But look at what Jesus saidright after this:

(John 6:63 NKJV) "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.
The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
The Catholic church would say that the bread becomes literal flesh, but Jesus
is saying that it’s not the “flesh” that counts, it’s the “spirit”.
Jesus is giving a spiritual teaching, telling us about the lessonof what it means
to “eatHis flesh” – throughout the entire chapter of John 6, Jesus makes is
very clearthat the key to eternal life is “believe”, notthe actualeating of
literal flesh.
(John 6:35-36 NKJV) And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who
comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
{36} "But I said to you that you have seenMe and yet do not believe.
(John 6:40 NKJV) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone
who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will
raise him up at the last day."
(John 6:47 NKJV) "Mostassuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has
everlasting life.
2. The importance of remembering
Luke records Jesus as saying,
(Luke 22:19 NKJV) And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it
to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in
remembrance of Me."

The whole point of communion is about remembering. It’s about
remembering what Jesus did for us. It’s not about some magicalthing of
turning bread into flesh. Those ofyou raisedin the Catholic church – did the
wafertaste like a waferor like flesh?
3. The Passoveritself
This was the meal they are eating, and it was meant to be reminder of what
God had done before. It was also supposedto be a way of teaching the
children about their faith.
(Exo 12:14 NKJV) 'So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep
it as a feastto the LORD throughout your generations. Youshall keepit as a
feastby an everlasting ordinance.
Now Jesus is giving a new thing to remember, His death for our sins.
Jesus is replacing the ritual of the Passover, whichwas intended to be about
teaching and remembering, with a new ritual, communion.
The Passovermealis called the “Seder”. There are all sorts of things done
during the Seder to teachand remind the people at the table of how God
delivered the Israelites from Egypt.
Part of the tradition is that there is a plate with three “matzot”, three sheets of
unleavened bread. At the beginning of the meal, there is a time knownas the
“Yachatz”, when the middle matzot is broken, the largerhalf is calledthe
“afikomen” and is hidden until the end of the meal as a sort of dessert.
During the meal certain foods are eaten, the story of the first Passoveris told,
and two cups of wine are drunk. At the end of the meal, the afikomenis taken
out and eaten, followedby the third cup of wine known as the “cup of
blessing”. Thensongs ofpraise are sung, followedby the fourth and final cup
of wine.

I wonder if Jesus was using the afikomenas the picture of His body. It was
the secondofthree pieces ofbread – reminding us that Jesus is the second
person of the Trinity.
Perhaps the cup that Jesus refers to as the blood of the New Covenantis the
“cup of blessing”.
When Paul was teaching on the problems of eating things sacrificedto
demons, he wrote,
(1 Cor 10:16 NKJV) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?
Lesson
The body
1. Bearing our sins
One aspectof the bread is to remind us of the physical body of Christ that
died on the cross.
Luke says “My body which is given for you” – He gave His life for us.
Matthew records that Jesus “broke”the bread.
When Paul talks about communion, he teaches us that Jesus said

(1 Cor 11:24 NKJV) "Take, eat; this is My body which is brokenfor you; do
this in remembrance of Me."
Whateverthis breaking is, it was “for” us.
The breaking could not be a broken bone because Moseswrote,
(Exo 12:46 NKJV) "In one house it shall be eaten;you shall not carry any of
the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones.
John records that indeed none of the bones of Jesus were broken(John 19:33-
36)
How could He be “broken”?
I think one aspectof His brokenness took place on the cross when our sins
were placed on Him.
(Isa 53:6 NKJV) All we like sheephave gone astray; We have turned, every
one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
David heard the cry of Jesus as our sins would be laid on Him:
(Psa 22:1 NKJV) My God, My God, why have You forsakenMe?
These were the words Jesus spoke while on the cross.

He died for us, He died to pay for us.
Communion is a time when we remember that our sins were “heaped” upon
Jesus on the cross. His bones weren’tbroken, but His body was broken from
my sins.
2. The church as the body
There is anotheraspectof the body in communion.
There is a very clearsense in Scripture that we, the church, are the body of
Christ. There is a sense in which when we take communion, there is not just a
communing with Christ, but a communing with eachother.
In the Jewishmindset, when you ate a meal with a person, you were becoming
“one” with that person. I eat the same bread that you eat. We are nourished
with the same bread. We become one.
The Greek wordfor “communion” is also the same word translated
“fellowship”. Koinonia means “sharing”, “having something in common.
The church in Corinth was having problems because they had divisions in the
church, divisions in the body of Christ. Paul recognizedhow the problems
could be seenin communion:
(1 Cor 11:20-30 NKJV) Therefore whenyou come togetherin one place, it is
not to eatthe Lord's Supper. {21} For in eating, eachone takes his own
supper aheadof others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. {22} What!
Do you not have houses to eatand drink in? Or do you despise the church of
God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I sayto you? Shall I
praise you in this? I do not praise you. {23} For I receivedfrom the Lord that
which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which

He was betrayed took bread; {24} and when He had given thanks, He broke it
and said, "Take, eat;this is My body which is broken for you; do this in
remembrance of Me." {25} In the same manner He also took the cup after
supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenantin My blood. This do, as often
as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Note Paul’s use of “remembrance” as well.
{26} For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death till He comes.
Communion is all about remembering Jesus’deathfor us.
{27} Therefore whoevereats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
The “unworthy” manner is not particularly talking about taking communion
with unconfessedsin in your life, but the problems of verse 21 – being selfish,
not sharing, getting drunk, etc.
{28} But let a man examine himself, and so let him eatof the bread and drink
of the cup.
Communion ought to be a time of self examination.
{29} For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks
judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. {30} For this reason
many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
I’d saythat in the context, “not discerning the Lord’s body” could very well
be the problems and divisions in the Corinthians church. Paul would talk
about more of these problems in chapter twelve as he talks about the body of

Christ – how people didn’t feel they belonged, how some lookeddown on
others.
It is important that we as a church realize that we are all a part of the body of
Christ. Even in the biggerpicture, there are other Christians we know who
belong to other churches, and they too are also a part of the body of Christ.
I think there is a sense of weakness thatcomes from not recognizing the body
of Christ.
2. Communion and healing
Here’s anotherthought on the broken body and the illnesses in the church in
Corinth.
One suggestionis that when Jesus spoke ofHis body being “broken”, He
might have been referring to the scourging that He would endure before being
crucified (John 19:1)
The process ofscourging:
The scourging was calledthe “intermediate death” because it was so painful,
and because it took a personso close to death.
The condemned personwould be led out to the front of the Praetorium, where
the crowdwas.
The prisoner would be stripped, and tied to a low post, stretching out the skin
on the back so the whip would more easilycut through.

The Jewishlaw had a limit of 40 lashes, but keepin mind, these are Romans
administering the scourging, so we don’t know how many times Jesus was
beaten.
The Romans used a “flagrum”, also calleda “cat-o-nine-tails”, leatherstrips
with pieces of bone or metal weighing down the ends, designedto tear the
flesh as they hit.
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian of the third century, said
(Epistle of the Church in Smyrna) concerning the Roman scourging inflicted
on those to be executed: The sufferer’s “veins were laid bare, and that the
very muscles, sinews, and bowels ofthe victim were open to exposure”.
(McDowell’s “Evidencethat Demands a Verdict”, pg.204)
Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Messiahtells us something about the
scourging:
(Isa 53:4-5 NKJV) Surely He has borne our griefs And carriedour sorrows;
Yet we esteemedHim stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. {5} But He was
wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities; The
chastisementfor our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
The “stripes” that Isaiahspeaks ofare the wounds receivedthrough
scourging.
Isaiahlinks the “stripes” with healing.
This “healing” certainly involves a spiritual healing. Peterrefers to this
spiritual healing when he writes,

(1 Pet 2:24 NKJV) who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree,
that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness;by whose stripes you
were healed.
But could this also have involved physical healing as well?
healed – rapha’ – to heal, make healthful. This is the same word used in:
(Exo 15:23-26 NKJV) Now when they came to Marah, they could not drink
the waters ofMarah, for they were bitter. Therefore the name of it was called
Marah. {24} And the people complained againstMoses, saying, "Whatshall
we drink?" {25} So he cried out to the LORD, and the LORD showedhim a
tree. When he castit into the waters, the waters were made sweet. There He
made a statute and an ordinance for them. And there He tested them, {26}
and said, "If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what
is right in His sight, give earto His commandments and keepall His statutes, I
will put none of the diseases onyou which I have brought on the Egyptians.
For I am the LORD who heals you."
Even in this passage, we see a beautiful picture of both physical as well as
emotional and spiritual healing.
The waters were bitter – just like our lives getwhen we don’t learn to forgive
others. Jesus told the story about the man who was forgiven by his master of
a debt of $50million, but refused to forgive his friend for a debt of $50. The
master responded…

(Mat 18:34 NKJV) "And his masterwas angry, and delivered him to the
torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.
A few weeks agoI heard Cynthia Swindoll share some of her life story and the
horrible torture of depressionshe suffered under for the first fifteen years of
her marriage to Chuck Swindoll. The torture finally ended when she was
counseledby another galwho shared with her that she needed to forgive the
people who had hurt her in her life. She needed to forgive them because God
had forgiven her.
When we have bitterness, God will show us a “tree”, Godwill show us the
cross. It’s at the cross that we’ve been forgiven. We need to take that
forgiveness and learn to forgive others, even when it doesn’t seemthat they
deserve it. Our unforgiveness and bitterness only hurts us.
Communion ought to be a time of healing.
We ought to remember how His body was broken, the stripes across His back,
and the healing that comes from the scourging of Christ.
It might be a physical healing. It might be emotional. It might be spiritual.
:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
"Drink from it, all of you.
In the PassoverSeder, the eating of the “afikomen” was followedby the
“BirkatHamazon”, the “Grace After Meals”. This was a series offour
“blessings”that were basedon the Scripture:

(Deu 8:10 NKJV) "When you have eatenand are full, then you shall bless the
LORD your God for the goodland which He has given you.
After these “blessings”,the third cup, the “cup of blessing” was drunk by the
participants at the Seder.
:28 "Forthis is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the
remissionof sins.
The “Old Covenant” was God’s agreementwith Moses, anagreementthat the
Israelites would obey the Law and Yahweh would in turn be their God. This
contract, or “covenant”, was initiated by taking the blood and sprinkling it on
the people (Ex. 24:3-8).
Thought the Law of Moses wasa goodthing, it’s purpose was to show man
how far short he fell from God’s standards. All along God had planned for
another covenant, a “New Covenant”.
Jesus is now initiating the “New Covenant”, a new agreementbetweenGod
and man.
(Jer 31:31-34 NKJV) "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I
will make a new covenantwith the house of Israeland with the house of
Judah; {32} "not according to the covenantthat I made with their fathers in
the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My
covenantwhich they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
{33} "But this is the covenantthat I will make with the house of Israelafter
those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on
their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. {34} "No
more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,
'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the leastof them to the
greatestofthem, says the LORD. ForI will forgive their iniquity, and their sin
I will remember no more."
Note: The new covenantincluded things like
1. Putting God's laws into the people's heart
2. Knowing God personally, and

3. Forgiveness ofsins.
Just as the first covenantwas initiated with a blood ritual, so the second
covenant, or new covenant, or new testament, was initiated with blood, Jesus'
own blood.
The cup we drink at communion is to help us remember that blood and
remember that we have this new relationship with God, not basedon our
works, but on His work for us.
Lesson
The blood
“What canwashaway my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus”.
The little cups of grape juice are supposedto remind us of the blood of Jesus
that was shed for us.
We’ve been purchased:
(1 Pet 1:17-19 NKJV) And if you callon the Father, who without partiality
judges according to eachone's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time
of your stay here in fear; {18} knowing that you were not redeemedwith
corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct receivedby
tradition from your fathers, {19} but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a
lamb without blemish and without spot.
We were purchasedby the most expensive thing in the universe, the blood of
God’s Son.
His blood cleansesus:
(1 John 1:7 NKJV) But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have
fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus ChristHis Son cleansesus
from all sin.
:29 "But I sayto you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on
until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

There is an aspectto communion that should make us look to the future. The
next time Jesus will have communion with His disciples is when He comes
back.
Maybe the next time we have communion, we’ll be having it with Jesus.
Think about it.
:30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
It was traditional at the end of the Passovermealto sing from the Psalms.
The traditional PassoverPsalms were Psalms 113-118. Theywould sing the
songs atvarious points during the meal. The last Psalmwould be Psalm118,
the end of which is:
(Psa 118:22-29 NKJV) The stone which the builders rejectedHas become the
chief cornerstone. {23}This was the Lord's doing; It is marvelous in our eyes.
{24} This is the day the LORD has made; We will rejoice and be glad in it.
{25} Save now, I pray, O LORD; O LORD, I pray, send now prosperity. {26}
Blessedis he who comes in the name of the LORD! We have blessedyou from
the house of the LORD. {27} God is the LORD, And He has given us light;
Bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar. {28} You are my God,
and I will praise You; You are my God, I will exalt You. {29} Oh, give thanks
to the LORD, for He is good!For His mercy endures forever.
We’ve talked about the significance ofthis Psalmwith Jesus’triumphal entry
into Jerusalemon PsalmSunday.
Jesus was the stone that the builders rejected.
He entered Jerusalemon “the day” the Lord made – fulfilling Daniel’s
prophecy of the Messiah’s coming in Daniel9:24-27.
The words “Save now” are a translation of “Hosanna”, whichis what the
crowdshouted as Jesus enteredJerusalem.
Jesus would die on a cross – fulfilling the picture of binding the sacrifice to the
altar.

COMMENTARYON MATTHEW 26:17-30
by Dr. Knox Chamblin
THE LAST SUPPER. 26:17-30.
I. A PASSOVER MEAL.
Thus does Mt identify the meal (26:17-19). On the chronologicalquestion, see
Appendix B. As an alternative to the view that the Synoptics and Jn reflect
different calendars, it may be that Jesus, foreseeing that his life would end
before he could participate in the meal at the officialtime, conductedan
anticipatory Passoverwith his disciples. "My appointed time is near. I am
going to celebrate the Passoverwithmy disciples" (v. 18; cf. Lk 22:15). The
disciples'exactobedience to Jesus'instructions (vv. 1-8-19), recalls 21:1-6.
II. THE LAST SUPPER AND THE PASSOVER MEAL. See Appendix C.
A. The Preliminary Course.
For all four cups red wine was required, because the redemption from Egypt
was accomplishedby the shedding of blood. Jesus makes the statement of v. 23

during this course. The "bowl" contained herbs and a fruit puree (a sauce of
dates, raisins and sour wine), which were scoopedout with bread. Becauseall
the disciples "dipped their hands into the bowl" with Jesus, this statement
alone would not divulge the traitor's identity (but see Jn 13:26).
B. The PassoverLiturgy.
Lk 22:17, and this accountalone, refers to the drinking of the secondcup. The
placement of the saying "I will not drink again..." atthis point in Luke's
account(v. 18), indicates that Jesus himself did not partake of the third cup -
the cup over which he speaks the words of Mt 26:27-28.
C. The Main Meal.
1. Judas'departure. Jesus'words of judgment upon the traitor, and his
conversationwith Judas (vv. 24-25), come before the beginning of the main
meal. Joining Mt's evidence to Jn 13:26-30, we conclude that Judas left the
room before the main meal commenced, and therefore before the words of
institution were uttered. He is thus excluded from the "all" of v. 27;he is not
embracedby the promise of the forgiveness ofsins (v. 28; cf. the terrifying
words of v. 24). On v. 25b ("You have said," Su eipas) as indicative of Judas'
hypocrisy, see Gundry, 527.
2. The grace over the bread. Jesus, as the host (or paterfamilias), offers the
blessing over the unleavened bread (v. 26;it is God who is blessed, not the
bread), and then pronounces the words of v. 26b.

Jesus was making a new covenant

Jesus was making a new covenant

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was making a new covenant

Similar to Jesus was making a new covenant (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was making a new covenant