Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 26:17 - 26:30
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Mar_14:12-26; Luk_22:7-39; Joh_13:1 to Joh_18:1)
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the [a] cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the [new] testament [my blood, the blood of the new covenant, ôὸ áῖ ̓ ìÜ ìïõ , ôὸ ôῆò êáéíῆò äéáèÞêçò ], which is shed for many for the remission [for remission, åἰò ἄöåóéí ] 29of sins. But [And] I say unto you, I will not [in no wise] drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. 30And when they had sung a hymn [the hymn of praise, i.e., the great Hallel, Psalms 115-118], they went out into the mount of Olives.
On the 14th of Nisan the leaven was removed, and the unleavened loaves ( äîöåú ) took their place. It was the first day of unleavened bread, forming the foundation of the Passover, which did not begin till the 15th of Nisan. The feast of faith rested upon a feast of renunciation. Hence the feast was reckoned to last eight days by Josephus (Antiq. ii. 15, 1). These words are express against the ancient notion, that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day earlier. Comp Meyer, p. 488.
The words ôῇäὲðñþ ôῃ ôῶíἀæýìùí are equivalent to the first day of the Passover, and important for the settlement of the chronological difficulty. All are agreed that this was Thursday, since Christ died on Friday (except Dr. Seyffarth, who makes it Wednesday, since he puts the crucifixion on Thursday). But the question is as to the day of the month, viz., whether it was the 14th of Nisan, at the close of which the paschal lamb was slain, as Dr. Lange, Wieseler, Hengstenberg, Bäumlein, Andrews, and most modern commentators of this passage assert, or the 13th of Nisan, according to the view of the Greek Church and of those commentators who, from a different point of view, try to harmonize the Synoptists with John. Had we no other guide in this matter than the Synoptists, every commentator would probably adopt the former view, for the following reasons: 1. It is the obvious meaning of the term used by all the Synoptists: “the first day of unleavened bread,” especially if we compare Mark, who characterizes the day more fully by adding: “When they killed the Passover (i.e., here the paschal lamb), and Luke, who says in equally clear terms: “When the Passover must be killed.” It was toward the close of the 14th of Nisan (probably from three o’clock till dark), that the paschal lamb was slain, and all preparations made for the feast which began with the paschal supper at evening, i.e., at the close of the 14th of Nisan and the beginning of the 15th of Nisan (which day was, strictly speaking, the first day of the feast, although, in popular language, the 14th was called the first day of Passover or of unleavened bread). See Exo_12:18 : “In the first month (Nisan), on the 14th day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.” Comp. Lev_23:5; Num_28:16. Dr. Robinson says (Harm. p. 214): “Their language (of the Synoptists) is full, explicit, and decided, to the effect that our Lord’s last meal with His disciples was the regular and ordinary paschal supper of the Jews, introducing the festival of unleavened bread on the evening after the 14th day of Nisan.” Comp. Meyer in loc.: “Es ist der 14. Nisan (nach den Synoptikern, Donnerstag) gemeint, mit dessen Abend das Passah begann, welcher aber schon ganz unter den Festtagen mitgezählt ist, nach der populär ungenauen Weise, in welcher auch Josephus, Antiq. ii. 15, 1, Acht Festtage zählt.” 2. It is very improbable that Christ, who came not to destroy but to fulfil, should have violated the legal time of the Passover, and if He did so, we would have some intimation of the fact in the Gospels. 3. An anticipatory sacrifice of the paschal lamb in the court of the temple, on the 13th of Nisan, a day before the legal time, would not have been permitted by the priests. Greswell quotes from Philo to the effect, that each man was then his own priest, and could slay the lamb in his own dwelling. But the weight of authority goes to show that the lamb must be slain in the temple and the blood be sprinkled on the altar (Deu_16:5-6; Ezr_6:20; 2Ch_35:11). Hence the Jews, after the destruction of the temple, have only a Memorial Passover, confined to the use of unleavened bread and bitter herbs with the usual psalms and prayers. The difficulty then arises not from the plain statements of the Synoptists, but from certain passages in John which seem to contradict the former, and from the seeming improbability that Christ should have been tried, condemned, and crucified on the 15th of Nisan, which was the most solemn day of the Passover. But it has been shown in the introduction to this chapter that these difficulties are not insurmountable, and in fact not so great as those presented on the other side. It is certain that John and the Synoptists can be harmonized on the chronological question concerning so important a part of primitive tradition as the date of the Saviour’s death.—P. S.]
To prepare the Passover.—To this appertained the slaying of the paschal lamb, which usually the Jewish householder attended to, and which took place in the outer court of the temple; the preparation of the unleavened loaves; the provision of the other requisites of the feast; with the preparation of the chamber. “The ðïῦ shows that this last is here intended.” Probably all had been done on the present occasion by the unknown friend of the Lord, to whom Mat_26:18 points, without the disciples knowing anything about it beforehand. The male young lamb or goat must be one year old, and without blemish (Exo_12:2-3 sqq.). It was slain “between the evenings;” that is, doubtless, between the decline of 14th Nisan, or the first evening, which extended to sundown, and the second evening, commencing at six o’clock. This is the chronological explanation of Josephus and the Rabbins; the more rigorous explanation of the Karaites and the Samaritans was, “between sundown and twilight.” The blood of the lamb was now no longer sprinkled on the door-posts, but was taken up by a priest, and then poured or sprinkled on the altar. Starke, after Lundius (Jüd. Alterthümer): A crowd of Israelites was received into the court, the gates were shut, the trumpets sounded. The householders slew their lambs. The priests formed a row which extended to the altar, received the blood in silver basins, which they passed on from one to another; and those who stood nearest the altar poured it out at its feet, whence it flowed subterraneously into the brook Kedron. The householder lifted the slain lamb to a hook on a pillar, took off its skin, and removed the fat. This last the priest burned on the altar. The householder uttered a prayer, and carried the lamb to his house, bound in its skin. The head of the house where the feast was held received the skin. When the first crowd departed, another followed, and so forth.
Mat_26:18. Go into the city.—The abode of Jesus at that time was in Bethany. According to Luke, the intimation was given to Peter and John.
To a certain man; ðñὸò ôὸí äåῖíá .—The Evangelist had his reasons for not mentioning the name of the man intended by Jesus. According to Calvin, Jesus did not give his name, and the disciples found it out by a miracle. According to Theophylact and others, He would not mention the name in the presence of Judas, that he might not execute his purpose of betrayal at the meal. Mark and Luke give expressly the manner in which He pointed out the man:—at their entrance into the city a man should meet them with a pitcher of water, whom they were to follow to the house whither he went. And they have the watchwords given to them which they were to speak, just as they were given to those who should fetch the two asses for the entrance into the city. Here, therefore, as there, it is to be presupposed: 1. That the man marked out was in both cases a believer; 2. that there was some kind of understanding between the Lord and the man; 3. that the understanding, especially in the present case, contemplated caution. 4. The Lord’s assurance, as it regards this man, reveals the certain knowledge of the Master, and the marvellous influence of His authority. And, in the present case, this cautious action would hinder the premature accomplishment of Judas’ purpose.
My time is at hand.—1. Kuinoel and others: The time of My PassoMatthew 26:2. Ewald: The time of My Messianic manifestation from heaven. 3. De Wette, Meyer: The time of My death. The text gives only the meaning: the certain period of the decisive crisis. De Wette: According to the view of the Synoptists (rather, of all the Evangelists), the Passover and the passion of Christ were inseparably connected. This expression proves also the unsoundness of the old hypothesis, that Jesus ate the Passover a day earlier than the proper time.
Mat_26:20. He reclined at table.—According to the ancient custom of reclining at the table, with the left hand resting upon the couch. It is remarkable that the Jews themselves ventured to modify the legal prescription, which required them to eat the Passover standing, with staff in hand, Exo_12:11. The rabbinical explanation is this: Mos servorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc comedunt recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exiisse eos a servitute in libertatem. [Dr. Wordsworth makes a liberal remark here, which is doubly to be appreciated as coming from a strict Episcopalian: “God had commanded the attitude of standing in the reception of the paschal meal; the Jewish church having come to the land of promise, and being there at rest, reclined at the festival, and our Lord conformed to that practice,—a proof that positive commands of a ceremonial kind, even of Divine origin, are not immutable if they are not in order to a permanent end.”—P. S.]
Mat_26:21. And as they were eating.—The Celebration of the Passover.—The company at table might not be less than ten persons (Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3). It generally included from ten to twenty, according to the family, or as enlarged by strangers. The image of a complete Church in the house. The rites of the feast were regulated by the succession of the cups, filled with red wine, commonly mixed with water. 1. Announcement of the Feast.—The head of the house uttered the thanksgiving or benediction over the wine and the feast, drinking the first cup. Then followed the remainder of the household. The washing of hands, after praise. 2. They then ate the bitter herbs, dipped in vinegar or salt water, in remembrance of the sorrows which their fathers underwent in Egypt. Meanwhile the paschal dishes were brought in—the well-seasoned broth (called charoseth), the unleavened loaves, the festal offerings, and the lamb. All these things were then explained. They sang the first part of the Hallel, or song of praise, Psalms 113, 114, and the second cup was drunk. 3. Then began the feast proper (at which they reclined): the householder took two loaves, broke one in two, laid it upon the whole loaf, blessed it, wrapped it with bitter herbs, dipped it, ate of it, and handed it round with the words: “This is the bread of affliction, which our fathers ate in Egypt.” He then blessed the paschal lamb, and ate of it; the festal offerings were eaten with the bread, dipped in the broth; and finally the lamb. The thanksgiving for the meal followed the blessing and drinking of the third cup. 4. The remainder of the Hallel was sung, Psalms 115-118, and the fourth cup drunk. Occasionally a fifth cup followed, while Psalms 120-127 were pronounced, but no more. The first cup was thus devoted to the announcement of the feast; and Luke tells us that with this cup Christ announced to the disciples that this was the last feast which He would celebrate with them in this world; and that He would celebrate with them a new feast in His Father’s kingdom. The second cup was devoted to the interpretation of the festal act: with it the Apostle Paul connects the exhortation: “As oft as ye eat of this bread,” etc., “ye show forth the Lord’s death.” The third cup followed the breaking of the loaves, which celebrated the unleavened bread, and was the cup of thanksgiving: this the Lord consecrated as the cup of the New Covenant, as He had consecrated the breaking of bread as the remembrance of His broken body, the bread of life. Thus, as in baptism He loosed from the Old Testament circumcision the sacred washing which accompanied it, and made it the New Testament sacrament of the covenant entered into, so also now He severed the breaking of bread and the cup of thanksgiving from the Old Testament Passover, and made it a sacrament of the New Testament redemption.
Two questions concerning the several modifications of the original Passover-rites, may here be briefly discussed (comp. also my Leben Jesu, ii. 3, p. 1422): 1. As it respects the relation of this account to the Gospel of John: he relates the washing of the feet, which introduced the Passover, with its interpretation; and he presupposes the institution of the Lord’s Supper itself as well known. We find it hinted at in the ἐíôïëὴ êáéíÞ , Joh_13:34. The contention as to which was the greatest, Luk_22:24, probably preceded the feet-washing, and was its immediate occasion. 2. As to the participation of Judas in the Lord’s Supper, we learn from John (13:30) that the traitor went away immediately after he had received the sop dipped in the vessel of the charoseth. As the sop can hardly be supposed to mean only the bitter herbs, the distribution of the bread must have preceded, if the rites had gone on as usual, but not the distribution of the third cup. Thus it might seem that Judas departed between the breaking of the bread and the cup of thanksgiving. The account of Luke, indeed, and it alone, appears to pre-suppose the participation of Judas in the full supper of both bread and wine. But his chronological sequence is not exact; for it is his purpose to mark strongly the contradiction between the spirit and feelings of the disciples, and the sacred meaning of the feast. Hence the contention follows at the close, Mat_26:24, although it had doubtless taken place before the washing of the feet. But Luke likewise assures us that Christ blessed the cup ìåôὰ ôὸ äåéðíí ͂ óáé , so that the later declaration: “The hand of him that betrayeth Me is with Me on the table,” must be referred to an earlier moment. After the third cup nothing more was eaten. But if we mark Matthew’s account more carefully, we may conclude that the breaking of the bread was deferred a little beyond the exact ritual time. It took place after the traitor was indicated as such, and after he had doubtless departed. Hence, then, the glorification of the Son of Man, according to John, in the symbolical act of the Supper, might proceed, Joh_13:31. Most of the Fathers and schoolmen were in favor of Judas’ participation: Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, Beza, etc. Against it were Tatian, Ammonius, Hilary, etc., and many Reformed theologians [also Nast, p. 572]. The discussion of the point cannot, without forcing, be made theologically important in the confessional controversies between Romanists and Protestants, Lutherans and Reformed. Comp. Wichelhaus, 100:50 p. 257.
[Mat_26:21. One of you will betray Me.—Wordsworth: “Observe how tenderly He deals with the traitor. Before supper He washed his feet; and He did not say: he will betray Me, but ‘one of you,’—in order to give him an opportunity for repentance; and He terrifies them all, in order that He may save one. And when He produced no effect on his insensibility by this indefinite intimation, yet, still desirous of touching his heart, He draws the mask off from the traitor, and endeavors to rescue him by denunciations.”—Similar remarks are made by the Fathers, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Leo M. See Catena Aurea.—P. S.]
Mat_26:22. Lord, is it?—See the particulars of this scene in Com. on St. John.
Mat_26:23. Into the dish.—According to John, an allusion to Psa_41:10. Meyer, following de Wette: “Yet no such plain intimation as that which, in Joh_13:26, Jesus gave to John. For it is not probable that the dipping took place after the expression of Jesus in Mat_26:21, and after the sensation of Mat_26:22, but rather before, when certainly several of the disciples had had their hand in the dish.” The last is quite doubtful. Comp. my remarks on Mar_14:20.—Meyer: “What is meant here was the sop of charoseth ( çøåñú ), which was prepared of dates, figs, etc., and which was of a brick color (in remembrance of the Egyptian bricks; Maimonides, ad Pesach, 7, 11).”
Mat_26:24. The Son of Man departeth.—That is, to death.
As it is written of Him.—De Wette: “This indicates the necessity of death or fate, after the Jewish view.” It rather indicates the Father’s counsel according to the knowledge of Christ.
But woe!—De Wette calls this an imprecation, as in Mat_18:6; confounding the Christian and the heathenish spirit, as before. The expression was a proverbial one, and very common, as Wetstein shows by many rabbinical passages. Here, it is to be remembered, the man as that particular man in his act is meant; not the man in himself, as that would throw an imputation upon his original creation. [Stier: This woe is the most affecting and meltinglamentation of love, which feels the woe as much at holiness requires or will admit.—P. S.]
Mat_26:25. Thou hast said it.—Formula of affirmation common among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, De Wette and Meyer consider this passage contradictory to Joh_13:26. But it is no other than one of those cases in which John supplements the rest. Without doubt, Judas only at the last moment asked,) “Is it I?” and the answer of Jesus, spoken probably with softened voice, was lost in the exclamation, “What thou doest, do quickly!”
Mat_26:26. As they were eating, Jesus took bread.—Not after the finished paschal feast, as Wetstein, Kuinoel, and Scholz suppose. Rather, as we have seen, the breaking of the bread, and the cup of thanksgiving, were taken from two elements in the Passover-rite. But the act of the breaking of the bread is brought down somewhat later; unless we assume that it had already taken place in a preparatory way, and thus was in some sense repeated. [The Fathers refer here to the consecration of bread and wine by Melchisedek, the priest-king, as a type of the Eucharist (Gen_14:18 sqq.; Psa_110:4; Heb_7:1-15). Bengel observes on the order åὐëïãÞóáòἔêëáóå (comp. Luk_22:19 and 1Co_11:24, åὑ÷áñéóôÞóáò , Ý ̓ êëáóå : “Fregit post Benedictionem; contra transubstantiationem. Accident enim, quale post benedictionem panem esse ajunt, non potest frangi.” From the giving of thanks ( åὐ÷áñéóôÞóáò ) and blessing ( åὐëïãÞóáò ) the offering, the holy communion is called åὐ ÷áñéóôßá . see the patristic passages in Suicer’s Thesaurus, sub verbo.—P. S.]
Take, eat; this is My body.—This, in the neuter ( ôïῦôï ). Therefore not directly ὁ ἄñôïò . So, in what follows, this is not the cup, but what was presented. Starke: “The expression: ‘The bread is the body of Christ, the wine Christ’s blood,’ is not properly scriptural, but a propositio ecclesiastica; although it is not incorrect, rightly understood.” Against the doctrine of transubstantiation. So, in 1 Corinthians 11 it is not, “This cup is My blood.” Meyer (a Lutheran by profession) thus explains the words of institution: “Since the whole Passover was a symbolical festival of remembrance; since, further, the body of Jesus was still unbroken, and His blood still unshed: none of those present at the table could have supposed that they were doing what was impossible,—that is, that they were in any sense actually eating and drinking the body and blood of the Lord. Again, the words spoken, according to Luke and Paul, in connection with the cup ( ἡ êáéíὴ äéáèÞêç ), absolutely exclude the sense that the wine in the cup was actually itself the New Covenant. For all these reasons, ἐóôß can be no other than the copula of symbolical relation. ‘This broken bread here which you are to take and to eat is symbolically My body, or the symbol of My body which is about to be offered up.’ ” So far Meyer. He then contends against the reference of the óῶìá to the mystical body of Christ, the Church (a view held by Œcolampadius, Schulthess, and Weisse). We distinguish, in conformity with the tenor of all the ritual usages of the Old Covenant, between the allegorical, the symbolical, and the typical meaning, as they all concur in the sacramental. 1. The allegorical (commonly called symbolical): The paschal lamb was an appropriate didactic figure of the ideally sacrificed first-born and their deliverance, a figure which at the same time signified the deliverance of Israel:—the breaking of the bread and the cup signify the broken body and the shed blood of Christ. 2. The symbolical: The paschal lamb was the symbol and assuring sign or pledge of the propitiatory offering up of the spiritual first-born, the priests of Israel set apart for the people:—the bread and the cup are the sealing signs of the redeeming propitiation which was accomplished by Christ in His perfect high-priestly sacrifice, which was changed from a sin-offering of death into a thank-offering of life. 3. The typical: The feast of the Passover was a prophecy in act; that is, the medium and the sign of the future of the suffering and triumphing Christ:—the bread and the cup are the type; they are the media of the spiritual transformation of believers through fellowship with the glorified Christ. Thus, didactic spiritual enlightenment, a sealed covenant redemption, and real participation in the glorified Christ, are the three elements which make the Supper a mysterious seal or sacrament of finished salvation. According to Meyer, the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics agree in the exegetical interpretation of ἐóôß , since both take the word as the copula of actual being. He thinks they only differ in their dogmatic definition of the manner of the being. Similarly there is an exegetical agreement and a dogmatic disagreement between Zwingli and Calvin, who both take the ἐóôß as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The ἐóôß of the Romanists means in fact: “it has become in a hidden manner;” that of the Lutherans: “it is in a certain sense and partially;” that of Zwingli: “it is in an exclusively spiritual sense;” that of Calvin: “it is in a concrete, spiritual-real manner.” On the allegorical and symbolical occurrence of ἐóôß (which, however, was not spoken in Aramaic), see Exo_12:11; Joh_15:1; Luk_7:1; Gal_4:24; Heb_10:20.
[De Wette, Meyer, Alford, and others agree with Lange that the verb is was not spoken in the original Aramaic ( äָà âåּùְׁîִé or áְּùָׂøִé ) Alford, whose lengthy explanation of the words of institution does not seem to me very clear, infers from this probable omission that the much controverted ἐóôß should not be urged at all. “In the original tongue in which the Lord spoke, it would not be expressed; and as it now stands, it is merely the logical copula between the subject this and the predicate My body.” But the verb is in the Greek text, and has to be disposed of in some way. De Wette thinks that ἐóôß may be real (Luther), or symbolical = significat (Zwingli); but that here the latter alone is admissible in view of the symbolical character of the whole discourse and action, and in view of the impossibility of Christ’s real living body being then offered to the disciples as food. He refers to Luk_12:1; Heb_10:20; Gal_4:24; Joh_14:6; Joh_15:1; Joh_15:5, etc., as instances of this symbolical meaning of ἐóôß A very large number of other passages have been quoted over and over again in the various stages of the sacramental controversy, by Ratramnus, Berengarius, Zwingli, Schulz, and others, in favor of the figurative interpretation. It is an acknowledged law of thought and language that the copula never really identifies two things essentially different, but brings simply the subject and predicate into a relation, the exact nature of which depends upon the nature of the subject and predicate. This relation may be real or symbolical, may be full or partial identity, or mere resemblance. But it is perhaps more correct to say, that the figure in these cases does not lie, as is usually assumed, in the auxiliary verb ( ἐóôß ), but, as Œcolampadius suggested, and as Maldonatus maintains in his lengthy exposition of Mat_26:26 (though he denies the figure in this case), either in the subject, or more usually in the predicate. If I say of a picture: “This is Martin Luther,” I mean to say: This is (really and truly) a picture of Martin Luther, or the man which this picture represents is M. L. If I say: “The dove is the Holy Spirit,” I mean to identify the dove with the Holy Spirit only in a symbolical or figurative sense. In both these cases the figure lies in the subject. But if I say: “Peter, thou art rock,” or “Christ is the rock, the lamb, the door, the bread, the vine,” etc., etc., the figure lies in the predicate, and I mean to convey the idea that Christ is really all this, not in a literal and physical, but in a higher spiritual sense, the rock of ages, the lamb of God, the bread of eternal life. As to the words of institution, already Tertullian explained them by circumscribing: hoc est figura corporis mei, but he also uses the term reprœsentat for est (Adv. Marc. 1:14; 3:19; 4:40). That there is something figurative in the words of the Saviour, is conclusively evident from the text according to St. Luke and St. Paul: ôïῦôï ôὸ ðïôÞñéïí (not: ïὗôïò ὁ ïἶíïò ) ἡ êáéíὴ äéáèÞêç ἐóôὶí ἐí ôῷ ἐìῷ áἵìáôé , where the cup is used for the wine,—a clear case of a synecdoche continentis pro contento,—and the covenant for the blood. Maldonatus, the Jesuit commentator, to get rid of this difficulty, boldly declares that Christ never spoke these words (“Nego Christum hœc verba dixisse,” etc.); but this does not help the case, since the inspired Luke and Paul must certainly be regarded as authentic expounders of the Saviour’s meaning, and Paul moreover expressly declares that he derived his account of the institution of the holy supper directly from the Lord. We see then that even the Romish interpretation, which otherwise is the most consistently literal, cannot be carried out exegetically, much less philosophically, and in order to maintain the thesis, that the bread is no bread at all as to substance, but the real body of Christ and nothing else, it must contradict the laws of reason, the testimony of the senses (the eyes, the smell, the taste), the declaration of Paul, who calls the eucharistic bread still bread, even after the consecration (1Co_10:16; 1Co_11:26-28), and must overthrow the true nature of the sacrament by destroying the natural elements. But the figurative exposition of the words of institution does by no means force us to stop with that sober, jejune, common-sense view of the Lord’s Supper, which regards it as a purely commemorative ordinance; it is perfectly consistent with the deeper view that it is at the same time the feast of a vital union of the soul with the whole person of the Saviour, and a renewed application, of all the benefits of His atoning sacrifice, so significantly exhibited and offered in this holy ordinance. See the further Exeg Notes, and the Doctrinal Thoughts below.—P. S.]
Eat.—Meyer: Eating and drinking are the symbol of the spiritual appropriation of the saving virtue of the sacrifice of Christ in His crucifixion and blood-shedding (comp. Paul: ôὸ ὑðὲñ ὑìῶí ), in living and saving faith (comp. Joh_6:51 sqq.); so that this symbolical participation of the elements represents a spiritual, living, and vivifying êïéíùíßá with the body and blood (1Co_10:16). De Wette (after Olshausen): “We must not suppose that Jesus Himself ate The paschal lamb was an appropriate didactic figure of the ideally sacrificed first-born and their deliverance, a figure which at the same time signified the deliverance of Israel:—the breaking of the bread and the cup signify the broken body and the shed blood of Christ. 2. The symbolical: The paschal lamb was the symbol and assuring sign or pledge of the propitiatory offering up of the spiritual first-born, the priests of Israel set apart for the people:—the bread and the cup are the sealing signs of the redeeming propitiation which was accomplished by Christ in His perfect high-priestly sacrifice, which was changed from a sin-offering of death into a thank-offering of life. 3. The typical: The feast of the Passover was a prophecy in act; that is, the medium and the sign of the future of the suffering and triumphing Christ:—the bread and the cup are the type; they are the media of the spiritual transformation of believers through fellowship with the glorified Christ. Thus, didactic spiritual enlightenment, a sealed covenant redemption, and real participation in the glorified Christ, are the three elements which make the Supper a mysterious seal or sacrament of finished salvation. According to Meyer, the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics agree in the exegetical interpretation of ἐóôß , since both take the word as the copula of actual being. He thinks they only differ in their dogmatic definition of the manner of the being. Similarly there is an exegetical agreement and a dogmatic disagreement between Zwingli and Calvin, who both take the ἐóôß as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The ἐóôß of the Romanists means in fact: “it has become in a hidden manner;” that of the Lutherans: “it is in a certain sense and partially;” that of Zwingli: “it is in an exclusively spiritual sense;” that of Calvin: “it is in a concrete, spiritual-real manner.” On the allegorical and symbolical occurrence of ἐóôß (which, however, was not spoken in Aramaic), see Exo_12:11; Joh_15:1; Luk_7:1; Gal_4:24; Heb_10:20.
Mat_26:27. And He took the cup.—The article is doubtful. But it is defined, not only by Luke and Paul, but also by Matthew, as the well-known cup in connection with or after the meal, which could only be the third,—as is proved also by the mention of the communion cup as the cup of thanksgiving in 1Co_10:16, which corresponds with the name of the third cup in the Jewish Passover. Meyer, on the contrary, asks: “Where would then have been the fourth cup, over which the second part of the Hallel was sung?” And he thinks it improbable that Jesus, after the cup of symbolical significance, would have added another cup without any such significance, also that Mat_26:29 excludes any additional cup. But the fourth cap marked the conclusion of the whole feast, and as such needed no particular mention. Moreover, it had no special reference to the paschal lamb, as Maimonides testifies (Lightfoot): Deinde miscet poculum quartum, et super illud per-ficit Hallel, additque insuper benedictionem Cantici, quod est: “Laudent te, domine, omnia opera tua,” etc., et dicit: “Benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis”—et postea non quidquam gustat illa nocte.
[Drink all ye of it—The ðÜíôåò , which stands in connection with the drinking of the cop, but not with the eating of the bread, supplies a strong argument against the withdrawal of the cup from the laity; for the disciples represent here the many, Mat_26:28, or the whole church of the redeemed, and not the ministry alone. The same may be said of the words of the Saviour: ὁóÜêéò åἂí ðéíçôå , according to the report of St Paul. Bengel: “Si una species sufficeret, bibendum esset potius. Etiam 1Co_15:25 ôü Quoties: in poculi mentione ponitur. Locuta sic est Scriptura, prævidens (Gal_3:8) quid Roma esset factura.” Still stronger, Calvin: “Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent, de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satanœ calliditati ex destinato occurrere voluisset.” Maldonatus, who dwells with undue length on this section to prove the Romish dogma of transubstantiation, notices the objection of Calvin, but disposes of it in a lame and is sophistical manner.—P. S.]
Mat_26:28. This is My blood.—That is, the wine. Meyer: “The symbol does not lie, as Wetstein and others think, in the (red) color, but in the being poured out.” But also, we add, in the nature of wine, the noble blood of the grape (see Joh_15:1 Gen_49:11-12).—The blood of the covenant, Body and blood are something like counterpart terms, but they are not precisely parallels: else we would read: “This is My flesh;—this is My blood” (Joh_6:53). It is usual to pay regard to the parallel terms as such; but to forget the sequence of the two expressions. The body signifies the whole, as the broken and dying outer life; the blood then signifies the whole as the inner life (the principle of the soul) poured out in sacrifice to God, by Him given back to the Redeemer for the world. The idea that the blood was to be drunk, is intelligible only when it is regarded as the new life received by God and given back to the offerers, that is, as the wine of the New Covenant. The Jews were not allowed to eat the flesh of a burnt-offering: the priests alone ate of the sin-offering; the laity of the thank-offerings. But the sacrificial blood, which belonged to God, it was permitted to none to drink. So far was this carried, that the eating of blood in any form was absolutely forbidden. And now Christ gives to His people His blood to drink. That cannot mean as the blood yet to be offered to God; but as the blood of the new risen life, which, having been poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, was accepted of God and given back to the New Covenant High Priest and to His Church. In the distribution of the body, the act of death is ideally presupposed, as the fulfilled and perfected expiation; and so, in the distribution of the blood, the act of reconciliation. But the consummate and sealed reconciliation is connected rather with the resurrection of Christ and its influence. And this is the predominant element in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Baptism represents fellowship with the whole Christ, fellowship with both His death and His resurrection; yet with special emphasis upon the death. The Lord’s Supper, again, signifies fellowship with the whole Christ; yet with special emphasis upon the resurrection. Hence the cup is the chief thing in the Eucharist; and a communion in bread alone (as in the Roman Church) bears too much resemblance to a new baptism.
The blood of the (new) covenant.— ãַּí äַáְּøִéú , Exo_24:8. Meyer: “My blood, serving for the establishment of a covenant with God.” Rather, “My blood which ratifies and seals the covenant already established.” For the covenant is in Exodus 24. supposed to have been entered into when the lamb was slain; and hence the offering of burnt-offerings and thank-offerings. The blood of the thank-offering is now in part poured out upon the altar, and in part sprinkled upon the people. Here first enters in the idea of a sacrificial blood which Jehovah gives back to the offering people—the essential germ of the sacramental participation of the blood in the Lord’s Supper. This blood serves also unto purification, according to Heb_9:14. But this purification is no longer the negative expiation, which abolishes the sin of the old life; it is the sanctification which completes positively the new life. The ordinary symbol of purification was water, though not without the addition of blood (Lev_14:6). The higher purification was the sprinkling with blood (the idea of the baptism of blood was the consummation of life in the ancient Church). This cleansing is not merely the removal of the impure, but also the positive communication of a new life, which cannot be lost. Hence, in the Old Testament, the sprinkling of blood was followed by eating and drinking on the part of Moses and the priests and the elders upon the Mount of God: Exo_24:11,—a very manifest type of the New Testament.
Which is shed (or: being shed) for many ( ôὸðåñὶ ðïëëῶí ἐê÷õíüìåíïí )—Present tense. [Compare the addition to óῶìá in Luke: ôὸ ὑðὲñ ὑìῶí äéäüìåíïí , which is being given.] The sacrifice is already virtually accomplished, and the future act realized in the Lord’s first Supper. Hence, this, eternal ideal presence of the atoning death is continued throughout all ages in the sacrament, because the offering was presented in the Eternal Spirit; but the Romish repetition of the sacrifice reduces the great atonement to a mere act of the past, a temporary event, however significant in its bearings and effects. Matthew writes ðåñß , Luke ὑðÝñ . While these prepositions are often interchanged, ὑðÝñ is the more definite expression. Matthew, however, adds the explanation, åἰò ἄöåóéí ; and therefore, in accordance with biblical typology, only an expiatory offering can be meant, yet at the same time an expiatory offering which is transformed by the grace of the reconciled God into a thank-offering. For the blood of the sin-offering as such belonged to God alone. The objective sprinkling of the blood, and the subjective act of faith, are both supposed.
Mat_26:29. I will not drink henceforth—Meyer refers this to the fourth cup as the eucharistic cup; but it seems rather to intimate that this fourth cup was drunk, as usual, in addition (after the eucharistic ðïôÞñéïí ôῆò åὐëïãßáò ), at the close of the feast, as the thanksgiving for the blessing of the wine. Hence the expression, “fruit of the vine.” At the same time, Christ marks this moment as His perfected renunciation of all things: His enjoyment of all things in this world had come to its end. It was the last cup of this world. Hence He consecrates this sad moment as the anticipatory festival of a common enjoyment in the world of glory. Bengel: Novitatem dicit plane singularem. Kuinoel: The expression is figurative, signifying the nighest happiness. The new wine of the glorified world, or of the kingdom of heaven, is a symbol of the future festal blessedness of the heavenly world, even as that earthly cup (especially the fourth one) was a symbol of the festal enjoyment of the spiritual life in this divinely created world.
[This verse implies that the Lord’s Supper has not only a commemorative and retrospective, but also a prophetic and prospective meaning. It not only carries us back to the time of the crucifixion, strengthening our vital union with the Redeemer, and conveying to us anew, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through faith, all the blessings of His atoning sacrifice; but it is also a foretaste and anticipation of the great Marriage Supper of the Lamb which He has prepared for his Church at His last advent, when all eucharistic controversies will cease forever, and give place to perfect vision and fruition in harmony and peace.—P. S.]
Mat_26:30. And when they had sung the hymn of praise, ὑìíÞóáíôåò .—The second part of the Hallel, Psalms 115-118.
To the Mount of Olives: that is, to Gethsemane, Mat_26:36. Meyer: The tradition, that people were obliged to spend this night in Jerusalem (Light, foot), seems not to have had a universal application. But ancient Jerusalem extended as far as the eastern declivity of the mount. And it is at least remarkable, in relation to this tradition, that Jesus did not go to Bethany.
2. The Woe Pronounced on Judas.—It were better for him that he had never been born. This is held, and rightly so, to prove the perdition of the traitor. But when his endless perdition is established by this text, and the words are taken literally, orthodoxy must take care lest the consequence be deduced, that it would have been better for all the condemned generally never to have been born, and evil inferences be drawn as to their creation. But our Lord’s expression cuts off such abstract discussions; it says only that it were better that he, ὁ ἄíèñùðïò ἐêåῖíïò , had never been born. This may be said of every sinner generally, inasmuch as his sin is the beginning of eternal death; but it held good especially, and in an immeasurably heightened sense, in the case of the traitor. We should feel and realize the full force of this most fearful word; yet without overstraining it, remembering that it is no final judicial sentence, but a burning expression rather of infinite pity.
3. That the first holy communion was at the same time an institution of the ordinance for His perpetual commemoration, is manifest from the express declaration of the Lord in Luke, from the account given by all the Evangelists, and from the testimony of the Church.
4. And it appears, further, from the particulars of the first supper, that it could not have been celebrated according to the Catholic, the Lutheran, or the Reformed doctrine; but that it was celebrated rather as an annunciation of the saving death of Jesus. It was the reconciliation of the disciples with the death of reconciliation; and, as Dietlein says (1857), a confession in the form of action, and not of doctrinal teaching. The development of the doctrine of the sacrament, however, became an ecclesiastical necessity, although by no means the confusion of Christian disputants about the doctrine. On the dogmatic question we must refer to the doctrinal histories generally, and to the monographs of Ebrard on the Reformed side (1845), of Kahnis on the Lutheran (1851), and also of Dieckhoff (1854).
Meyer, p. 443, sums up the views of Ebrard and Kahnis with the remark: “It would be easy on the way which is supposed to lead to the Lutheran theory, to arrive at the dogma of transubstantiation, because both theories rest on doctrinal premises to which the exegetical treatment is made to conform.” The different interpretations of the various evangelical confessions are not necessarily contradictory and exclusive, but may, with certain modifications, be reconciled under a higher theory. Comp. my Positive Dogmatik, p. 1144. The Reformed divines will always insist on the allegorical and symbolical interpretation of the words of institution as a proper starting point (comp. Martensen, § 262); while the Lutherans, on the other hand, will maintain that the holy communion is not only the sign and seal of the negative abolition of the guilt of sin by the death of Christ, but also a positive celebration and communication of the new life of Christ, as also the symbolical anticipation and typical foundation of the final glorification of the spiritual life of believers.
[Dr. Lange refers here, without naming it, to Martensen’s Christliche Dogmatik (German translalation from the Danish, 2d ed. Kiel, 1853, § 262, p. 491), where this distinguished Lutheran divine of Denmark concedes the relative truth of Zwingli’s symbolical interpretation, but combines with it the Lutheran, at least as to its substance, concerning the actual fruition of Christ. As this interesting work is not accessible to the English reader, as far as I know, I will translate the passage in full: “The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation resolves the natural elements into an empty show, and violates the order of nature in order to glorify the order of grace. Against this the whole Evangelical Church protests, and maintains the natural identity of the sensual signs. ‘Bread is bread, and wine is wine,’ both are symbols only (nur Sinnbild) of the body and blood of Christ. In this sense, as a rejection of transubstantiation, the entire Evangelical Church owns and adopts Zwingli’s interpretation: ‘this signifies’ (dies bedeutet). And in this church-historical connection Zwingli’s sober common-sense view acquires a greater importance than Lutheran divines are generally disposed to accord to it. Zwingli himself almost stopped with this negative protest; while Luther held fast to the real presence of the Lord (comp. Conf. Aug. art. x.), but a presence which is veiled and hid under the natural signs, and communicates the heavenly gifts of grace in, with, and under the same. Calvin sought out a medium path between Zwingli and Luther, but his theory of the real presence represents a one-sidedness the very opposite to that of the doctrine of transubstantiation [?], by separating dualistically what Romanism mixes and confounds.”—P. S]
[In this connection it may be proper to refer to a recent controversy, as far as it bears on the exegetical aspect of the eucharistic question, among Lutheran divines. Dr. C. Fr. Aug. Kahnis, who is quoted above by Meyer and Lange as the chief modern champion of the Lutheran doctrine of the eucharist, as Ebrard is of the Calvinistic, has recently changed his view on the exposition of the words of institution, and thus superseded the lengthy note of Meyer (Com. on Matthew, p. 498 sq. 4th ed.) above quoted in part by Dr. Lange. In his recent work on didactic theology, he gives up the literal interpretation of the ἐóôß , to which Luther always resorted as the strongest bulwark for his theory of the real corporeal presence of Christ in the sacramental elements (in, cum et sub pane et vino). I will translate the exegetical results (without the arguments) at which Kahnis arrives in the first volume of his Dogmatics: “Where such difficulties are to be overcome, it is well to proceed from principles which command assent. 1. It is beyond a doubt that the sentence: ‘The bread is the body, the wine is the blood of Jesus,’ taken literally, is logically an impossibility.... Bread and body are heterogeneous conceptions which can no more be identified as subject and predicate than: Hegel is Napoleon, or, this wood is iron.... 2. It is beyond controversy that the sentence: ‘This is my body,’ may be figurative (metaphorical). The Scriptures contain innumerable figurative sentences....3. The words of institution say plainly that the body of Christ is here spoken of as the one which was to be offered up in death....If bread and wine are the subject, then the literal interpretation must be given up, and to this we are forced even by the sentence: ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood,’ which...must mean: This cup is a sign of the new covenant….” Dr. Kahnis then goes on to prove that the Lord’s Supper is not a mere memorial, but also a feast of the life union of believers with the whole Christ, etc., but adds expressly, that Christ can only be received in a spiritual manner (not by oral munducation), i.e., by faith. In his self-defence against Dr. Hengstenberg (Zeugniss von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus, etc., Leipzig, 1862, p. 26 sqq.) he discusses the question again, and arrives at the conclusion (p. 28) that “the Lutheran interpretation of the words of institution must be given up,” but that this matter affects only the Lutheran theology, not the Lutheran faith, which he thinks is substantially right, though resting on an untenable exegetical basis. He also expresses his conviction (p. 29) that there is a possibility of a higher union and reconciliation of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine on the eucharist. Dr. Francis Delitzsch, of Erlangen, another prominent divine and Biblical scholar of the strict Lutheran type, in his pamphlet: Für und wider Kahnis, Leipzig, 1863, p. 28, thus speaks of his friend’s recent change on this particular point: “In the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, Kahnis has no intention of giving up the Lutheran dogma, he only thinks it necessary to drop the Lutheran exposition of the words of institution. He admits, indeed, that in themselves considered, they may be understood synecdochically, as it may be said of the dove which descended at the baptism of John: ‘This dove is the Holy Spirit;’ but he regards this synecdochical relation inapplicable in this case on account of the words of Luke and Paul: ôïῦôï ôὸ ðïôÞñéïí ἡ êáéíὴ äéáèÞêç . We think, on the contrary, that these words confirm the Lutheran exegesis; for they present evidently a synecdoche continentis pro contento: the cup is the New Testament in Jesus’ blood, because it contains and exhibits this very blood of the Testament which is the ground, bond, and seal of the New Covenant. As Kahnis does not mean to discredit, but rather to save the I.uther. an dogma, we may hope that he may find out at last that the words of institution which have become uncertain and unsettled to his mind, still stand fast, and that his new doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is only a shadow, not the substance, of the Lutheran dogma.” Dr. Ebrard, on the other hand, a distinguished champion of the Reformed Confession, in the second edition of his Christliche Dogmatik, Königsberg, 1863, vol ii. p. 638, expresses his satisfaction that Kahnis has come over, as he thinks, to his own view on the Lord’s Supper, which he formerly opposed, but censures him rather severely for not giving him credit for indebtedness to his (Ebrard’s) argument. Dr. Kahnis will take care of his originality. But we firmly believe that the Lutheran and Reformed views can be essentially reconciled, if subordinate differences and scholastic subtleties are yielded, and that the chief elements of reconciliation are already at hand in the Melanchthonian-Calvinistic theory. The Lord’s Supper is: 1. A commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ’s atoning death. (This is the truth of the Zwinglian view which no one can deny in the face of the words of the Saviour: Do this in remembrance of Me). 2. A feast of living union of believers with the Saviour, whereby we truly, though spiritually, receive Christ with all His benefits and are nourished by His life unto life eternal. (This was the substance for which Luther contended against Zwingli, and which Calvin retained, though in a different scientific form, and in a sense confined to believers.) 3. A communion of believers with one another as members of the same mystical body of Christ. See below, No. 9.—P. S.]
5. The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice, but a festal thank-offering. Hence the name Eucharist, which connects itself with the cup of thanksgiving. Gregory the Great was the first who changed the idea of the New Testament thank-offering into that of a sin-offering; and those evangelical theologians who are anxious to establish in the Supper a continued propitiation, have already passed the Rubicon between the Evangelical Confession and Romanism.
6. Meat and drink; bread and wine: type of the whole nourishment and invigoration of life, the spiritual life being also presented under this twofold aspect in Scripture (Psalms 23, green pastures or meadows, and fresh waters). The Lord’s Supper embraces both in one: it is the sacrament of the glorification of the new life derived from the bloody fountain of the atoning death of Jesus.
7. The materia terrestris and cœlestis in the Eucharist. Its religious and moral influence. Either salvation or condemnation.
8. For the history of the rites of the Lord’s Supper, see the works on church history and archæology. The Church passed over from the use of unleavened to the use of leavened bread. Contentions arose, in consequence, between the Eastern and the Western Churches. Other differences concerning the kind of bread, the use and withdrawal of the wine, the posture (kneeling, standing, sitting) of the communicants, etc.
[9. It is a sad reflection, that the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, this feast of the unio mystica