Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 26:26 - 26:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_26:26.[24] The meal—having been, naturally enough, interrupted by the discussion regarding Judas—would now be resumed; hence the repetition of the ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν of Mat_26:21 with the continuative ΔΈ , which latter is so often used in a similar way after parentheses and other digressions, especially in cases where previous expressions are repeated; comp. on 2Co_5:8; Eph_2:4.
ΛΑΒῺΝ Ὁ ἸΗς . Τ . ἌΡΤΟΝ ] According to the Rabbis, the order of the Passover meal was as follows (see Tr. Pesach. c. 10; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 448 ff.; Lightfoot, p. 474 ff.; Lund, Jüd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1125 ff.; Wichelhaus, p. 248 ff.; Vaihinger in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 141 ff.):—(1) It began with drinking wine, before partaking of which, however, the head of the family offered up thanks for the wine and the return of that sacred day (according to the school of Sammai, for the day and for the wine). “Poculum ebibit, et postea benedicit de lotione manuum, et lavat,” Maimonides. (2) Then bitter herbs ( îøåøéí , intended to represent the bitter life of their forefathers in Egypt) were put upon the table, some of which being dipped in a sour or brinish liquid, were eaten amid thanksgivings. (3) The unleavened bread, the broth charoset (see on Mat_26:23), the lamb and the flesh of the chagiga (see on Joh_18:28), were now presented. (4) Thereupon the head of the family, after a “Benedictus, qui creavit fructum terrae,” took as much of the bitter herbs as might be equal to the size of an olive, dipped it in the broth charoset, and then ate it, all the other guests following his example. (5) The second cup of wine was now mixed, and at this stage the father, at the request of his son, or whether requested by him or not, was expected to explain to him the peculiarities of the several parts of this meal. (6) This did not take place till the Passover viands had been put a second time upon the table; then came the singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 113, 114), another short thanksgiving by the father, and the drinking of the second cup. (7) The father then washed his hands, took two pieces of bread, broke one of them, laid the broken pieces upon that which remained whole, repeated the “Benedictus sit ille, qui producit panem e terra,” rolled a piece of the broken bread in bitter herbs, dipped this into the broth charoset, and ate, after having given thanks; he then took some of the chagiga, after another thanksgiving, and so also with regard to the lamb. (8) The feast was now continued by the guests partaking as they felt inclined, concluding, however, with the father eating the last bit of the lamb, which was not to be less than an olive in size, after which no one was at liberty to eat anything more. The father now washed his hands, and, praise having been offered, the third cup ( ëñà äáøëä ) was drunk. Then came the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Psalms 115-118) and the drinking of the fourth cup, which was, in some instances, followed by a fifth, with the final singing of Psalms 120-137 (Bartolocc. Bibl. Rabb. II. p. 736 ff.).
Seeing that, according to this order, the feasting, strictly speaking, did not begin till No. 8, for all that preceded had the character of a ceremonial introduction to it; seeing, further, that it is in itself improbable that Jesus would interrupt or alter the peculiarly ceremonial part of the feast by an act or utterance in any way foreign to it; and considering, in the last place, that when Judas retired, which he did immediately after he was announced as the betrayer, and therefore previous to the institution of the last supper,—the Passover meal had already extended pretty far on into the night (Joh_13:30),—we must assume that the ἘΣΘΙΌΝΤΩΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ of Mat_26:21, as well as the similar expression in Mat_26:26, should come in after No. 7, and that the eating under No. 8 is the stage at which the Lord’s supper was instituted; so that the bread which Jesus took and brake would not be that mentioned under No. 7 (Fritzsche), but the ἄρτον (with the article, see the critical remarks), the particular bread with which, as they all knew, He had just instituted the supper. He would have violated the Passover itself if He had proclaimed any new and peculiar symbolism in connection with the bread before conforming, in the first place, to the popular ceremonial observed at this feast, and before the less formal and peculiarly festive part of the proceedings was reached. Again, had the breaking and distributing of the bread been that referred to under No. 7, one cannot see why he should not have availed Himself of the bitter herbs as well, furnishing, as they would have done, so appropriate a symbol of the suffering inseparable from His death.
καὶ εὐλογήσας ] after having repeated a blessing—whether the “Benedictus ille, qui producit panem e terra” (comp. No. 7 above), or some other more appropriate to the particular act about to be performed, it is impossible to say. The latter, however, is the more probable, as it would be more in accordance with the very special nature of Christ’s feelings and intention on this occasion. Now that the meal was drawing to a close (before the second part of the Hallel was sung, Mat_26:30), He felt a desire to introduce at the end a special repast of significance so profound as never to be forgotten. The idea that His ΕὐΛΟΓΕῖΝ , as being the expression of His omnipotent will (Philippi, p. 467 ff.), possessed creative power, so that the body and blood became realized in the giving of bread and wine, may no doubt accord with the orthodox view of the sacrament, but can be as little justified, on exegetical grounds, as that orthodox view itself; even in 1Co_10:16 nothing more is implied than a eucharistical consecration prayer for the purpose of setting apart bread and wine to a sacred use.
It is, further, impossible to determine whether by καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθητ . we are to understand the handing of the bread piece by piece, or simply the presenting of it all at once upon a plate. Considering, however, that the guests were reclining, the latter is the more probable view, and is quite in keeping with the ΛΆΒΕΤΕ . This ΛΆΒΕΤΕ denotes simply a taking with the hand, which then conveys to the mouth the thing so taken, not also a taking in a spiritual sense (Ebrard). Further, it must not be inferred from the words before us, nor from our Lord’s interpretation (my body) of the bread which He presents, that He Himself had not eaten of it. See on Mat_26:29. He must, however, be regarded as having done so before handing it to the disciples, and before uttering the following words.
τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου ] There can be no doubt that τοῦτο is the subject, and (avoiding the Lutheran synecdoche) can only refer to the bread that was being handed to them, and not to the living body of Christ (Carlstadt), nor to the predicate which first follows (Ströbel), while it is equally certain that no emphasis of any kind is to be laid upon the enclitic ΜΟΥ (in opposition to Olshausen and Stier). But seeing, moreover, that the body of Jesus was still unbroken (still living), and that, as yet, His blood had not been shed, none of the guests can have supposed what, on the occasion of the first celebration of the supper, was, accordingly, a plain impossibility, viz., that they were in reality eating and drinking the very body and blood of the Lord,[25] and seeing also that, for the reason just stated, Jesus Himself could not have intended His simple words to be understood in a sense which they did not then admit of,—for to suppose any essential difference between the first and every subsequent observance of the supper (Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. p. 341; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III. 2, p. 62; Stier; Gess, I. p. 167) is to have recourse to an expedient that is not only unwarrantable, but extremely questionable (see, on the other hand, Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 126 f.), and because, so long as the idea of the κρέας is not taken into account, any substantial partaking of the ΣῶΜΑ alone and by itself, without the ΑἿΜΑ , appears utterly inconceivable;[26] for here, again, the idea of a spiritual body, which it is supposed Jesus might even then have communicated (Olshausen; Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1843, 3, p. 56; Kahnis, Abendm. p. 453; Hofmann; Schoeberlein, üb. d. heil. Abendm. 1869, p. 66), belongs entirely to the region of non-exegetical and docetic fancies, for which even the transfiguration furnishes no support whatever (see on 1Co_10:16), and is inconsistent with the αἷμα (1Co_15:50; Php_3:21): it follows that ἘΣΤΊ is neither more nor less than the copula of the symbolic statement:[27] “This, which ye are to take and eat, this broken bread,[28] is, symbolically speaking, my body,”—the body, namely, which is on the point of being put to death as a λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν (Mat_20:28). The symbolical interpretation has also been correctly adhered to by David Schulz, de Wette, Julius Müller, Bleek, Rückert, Keim, Weizsäcker; comp. Ewald, Morison, Weiss on Mark, and others. According to Matthew, as also according to Paul (1Co_11:24, where κλώμενον is spurious), Jesus omits entirely the tertium comparationis,—an omission, however, which in itself is more in keeping with the vivid symbolism of the passage and the deep emotion of our Lord. The symbolical act of breaking, which cannot possibly have anything to do with the glorified body, but which refers solely to that which was about to be put to death, was sufficient to enable us to perceive in this breaking what the point of comparison was; for the breaking of the bread and the putting to death of the body resemble each other in so far as the connection of the whole is violently destroyed, so that the bread in fragments can no longer be said to be the bread, nor the body when put to death to be any longer a living being.[29] The eating (and the drinking), on the other hand, is a symbol of the reception and appropriation, in saving faith (Joh_6:51 ff.), of the atoning and redeeming virtue inherent in the death of the body (Paul as above: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ) and in the shedding of the blood of Jesus; so that the act of receiving the elements in the consciousness of this, establishes a κοινωνία with the body and blood that is spiritually living and active, and therefore, in all ethical respects, genuine and real (see on 1Co_10:16),—a fellowship in which the believing communicant realizes in his inward experience that the divine-human life of the crucified Redeemer is being imparted to him with saving efficacy, and in which he acquires a full assurance of eternal life. With regard to the divers views that have prevailed upon this point in the church, and of which the two held by Protestants do not admit of being harmonized without sacrificing their distinctive peculiarities (in opposition to Ebrard, Lange), it may be said that those of the Catholics and Lutherans are exegetically at one in so far as their interpretation of the ἐστί is concerned, for they agree in regarding it as the copula of actual being; it is only when they attempt a more precise dogmatic definition of the mode of this actual being that the divergence begins to show itself. Similarly, there is no difference of an exegetical nature (Rodatz in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1843, 4, p. 11) between the interpretation of Zwingli (and Oecolampadius) and that of Calvin (“externum signum dicitur id esse, quod figurat,” Calvin). On the relation of Luther’s doctrine to that of Calvin, see Julius Müller’s dogmat. Abh. p. 404 ff. For ἐστί (which, however, Jesus would not express in Aramaic, His words probably being äÈà âåÌùÑÀîÄé ) as a copula of symbolical or allegorical being, comp. Mat_13:38 f.; Luk_12:1; Joh_10:6; Joh_14:6; Gal_4:24; Heb_10:20; Rev_1:20.
That Jesus might also have used σάρξ instead of σῶμα (comp. John 6) is clear; in that case prominence would have been given to the material of which the σῶμα is composed (comp. Col_1:22). Comp. Rückert, p. 69. But it would not have been proper to use κρέας (dead flesh, the flesh of what has been slain, Rom_14:21; 1Co_8:13; see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94).
[24] On ver. 26 ff. and the parallel passages, see Ebrard (Dogma vom heil. Abendm. I. p. 97 ff.), who also (II. p. 751 ff.) mentions the earlier literature of the subject; see besides, the controversy between Ströbel and Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1842 ff.; Rückert, d. Abendm., Lpz. 1856, p. 58 ff.; Keim in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 63 ff.; of modern dogmatic writers, consult, in particular, Kahnis and Philippi. Comp. on Mar_14:22 f.; Luk_22:19 f.; 1Co_11:24 f.
[25] Wetstein well observes: “Non quaerebant utrum panis, quem videbant, panis esset, vel utrum aliud corpus inconspicuum in interstitiis, panis delitesceret, sed quid haec actio significaret, cujus rei esset repraesentatio aut memoriale.” Thomasius, however, as above, p. 61, finds no other way of disposing of the simple impossibility referred to, but by maintaining that this giving of Himself on the part of the Lord was of the nature of a miracle. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 215, also Philippi, p. 433 f., who is at the same time disposed to assume that the Spirit illuminated the minds of the disciples as with lightning flash. The supposition of a miracle is certainly the last resort, and this on exegetical grounds is wholly unjustifiable in a case in which neither the narrative itself nor the thing narrated implies a miracle.
[26] In reply to the question why Jesus distributes the body and blood separately, Thomasius, p. 68, has no answer but this: “I do not know.” We are accordingly met on the one hand with the assertion of a miracle, on the other with a non liquet. This is the way difficulties are supposed to be got over, but they remain, and continue to assert themselves all the same. There ought to be no hesitation in conceding that the separate participation, namely, of the body without the blood, and then of the blood by itself, is not to be understood as an actual eating and drinking of them, but as due to the symbolism based upon the circumstance of the body being put to death and the blood shed.
[27] In the case of Luke and Paul, the necessity of adopting the symbolical interpretation of ἐστί shows itself above all (1) in the words used with reference to the cup ( ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ). The new covenant has been made in and through the actual blood of Christ. This blood, inasmuch as it has been shed, is the essential objective causa effectiva of the covenant. It is so in virtue of the historical fact of the shedding, while it is this same fact that justifies its being designated a new covenant (Joh_11:25). The wine poured into the cup can be said to be the blood of Christ as it actually was after being shed on the cross, only in so far as it represents that real covenant-blood as it was previous to its being shed, and with the near prospect of its shedding fully in view; it is this blood, but only in the sense warranted by a profound vivid symbolism. (2) It is on the strength of this symbolical interpretation that Luke and Paul would appear to have added the expression εἰς τ . ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν to the words of the institution. See on Luk_22:19 f. The ἀνάμνησις denotes a realizing of that as present which is no longer so in bodily form.
[28] Not: that which I here hand to you in the form of bread (the Catholic view), nor: that which I here hand to you in, with, and under the covenant (the synecdoche of Lutheran orthodoxy). The doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ’s body is inconsistent with the essential idea of a body, as was pointed out as early as the time of the Fathers, especially by Augustine: “Cavendum enim est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus,” Augustine, ep. 57, ad Dardan.; they understood the body of Christ to be in heaven, where it always remained.
[29] Philippi, p. 422 ff., is wrong in refusing to admit that the point of comparison lies in the breaking. The ἔκλασε is the circumstance above all which the whole four evangelists agree in recording, making it appear, too, from the terms they employ, that it was regarded as a special act. Moreover, the fact that at a very early period the spurious κλώμενον of 1Co_11:24 had come to be extensively adopted, may be regarded as affording evidence in favour of the correctness of the church’s interpretation of this symbolical act. The same view is implied in the reading θρυπτόμενον ; comp. Constitt. Ap. viii. 12, 13.