Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 26:28 - 26:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_26:28. The death-symbolism is now applied to that which contains the life (Gen_9:4 ff., and comp. on Acts 15), viz. the blood, which is described as sacrificial blood that is to be shed in order to make atonement. Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament (Heb_12:24 not excepted) can there be any question of the glorified blood of Christ. Comp. on Mat_26:26, and on 1Co_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 of its being poured out (see below: τὸ π . πολλ . ἐκχυνόμ .) into the cup; the outpouring is the symbolical correlative to the breaking in the case of the bread.
γάρ ] justifies the πίετε … πάντες , on the ground of the interpretation given to that which is about to be drunk.
ἐστί ] as in Mat_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 ( ãÌÇí äÇáÌÀøÄéú , Exo_24:8), my blood which serves to ratify the covenant with God. This is conceived of as sacrificial blood (in opposition to Hofmann). See Delitzsch on Heb_9:20. In a similar way Moses ratified the covenant with God by means of the sacrificial blood of an animal, Exo_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 Mat_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, connect the pronoun with τ . διαθήκης (the blood of my covenant). The covenant which Jesus has in view is that of grace, in accordance with Jer_31:31 ff., hence called the new one (by Paul and Luke) in contradistinction to the old one under the law. See on 1Co_11:26.
τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυν . εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ] Epexegesis of τὸ 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 covenant is 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 of sins. The last part of this statement, and consequently what is implied in it, viz. the atoning purpose contemplated by the shedding of blood (comp. Lev_17:11), is to be understood as setting forth more precisely the idea expressed by περί . It must not be supposed, however, that ὑπέρ , which is used by Luke instead of περί , is essentially different from the latter; but is to be distinguished from it only in respect of the different moral basis on which the idea contained in it rests (like the German um and über), so that both the prepositions are often interchanged in cases where they have exactly one and the same reference, as in Demosthenes especially. See generally, on Gal_1:4; 1Co_1:13; 1Co_15:3.
The shedding of the blood is the objective medium of the forgiveness of sins; the subjective medium, viz. faith, is contained by implication in the use made in this instance, as in Mat_20:28 (see on the passage), of πολλῶν , as well as in the symbolic reference of the πίετε .
It is to be observed, further, that the genuineness of the 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 regarded as having been originally spoken by 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 observed by 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 1Co_11:24-26, no less than from the practice of the apostolic church, that the apostles were convinced that such was the intention of our Lord, so much so, that to the words of the institution themselves was added that express injunction to repeat the observance εἰς τ . ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν which Paul and Luke have recorded. As bearing upon this matter, Paul’s declaration: παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου , Mat_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 impression made upon the minds of the grateful disciples by the first celebration of the supper (Paulus, comp. also Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 195).
REMARK 2.
The two most recent and exhaustive Protestant monographs 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 Reformed view, and Kahnis, d. Lehre vom Abendm., Lpz. 1851, as representing the Lutheran. Rückert, on the other hand, d. Abendm., s. Wesen u. s. Gesch. (Lpz. 1856), ignores the Confessions altogether, and proceeds on purely exegetical principles. 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 broken is 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 eaten and the wine to be drunk, and inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the new covenant in His blood, the bread and the wine are, therefore, not mere symbols, but they assume that he who partakes of them is an actual sharer 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 actual connection and union,—it follows that partaking of the Lord’s supper involves as its result a true, personal central union and fellowship of life with Christ.” The result at which Kahnis arrives in his above-cited work 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,—just as its substratum, the bread, was broken,—with a 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,—just as 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 accidental in its nature, the essential substance being brought out in the predicate. As for the second element, he considers that it expresses the identity of the communion blood with the blood of the atoning sacrifice, and that not in respect of 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 efficacy which, in the words of the institution, is ascribed to the latter necessarily implies a corresponding efficacy in regard to the former.
By adopting the kind of exegesis that has 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 keenly but awkwardly maintained by Schegg, and which finds an abler but no less arbitrary and mistaken advocate in Döllinger (Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 37 ff., 248 ff., ed. 2), because in both cases the results are based upon the application of the exegetical method to dogmatic premises.
Then, in the last place, Rückert arrives at the conclusion that, 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 spoken serve 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 crossed the mind either of Jesus or of the disciples; that it was Paul who, in speculating as to the meaning of the material substances, began to attach to them a higher importance, and to entertain the view that in the supper worthy and unworthy alike were partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the supersensual and heavenly form in which he conceived them 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 spoken by our Lord, so that his view has furnished the germs of a version of the matter which, so far at least as its beneficial results are concerned, does not tell in his favour (p. 242). In answer to Rückert in reference to Paul, see on 1Co_10:16.
[30] In his Dogmatik, however (1861), I. pp. 516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis candidly acknowledges the shortcomings of the Lutheran view, and the necessity of correcting them, and manifests, at the same time, a decided leaning in the direction of the Reformed doctrine. The supper, he says, “is the medium, of imparting to the believing communicant, in bread and wine, the atoning efficacy of the body and blood of Christ that have been sacrificed for us, which atoning efficacy places 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 sacramental word concerning our Lord’s body and blood which when emitted by Christ has the effect of conveying the benefits of His death. He expresses himself more clearly in II. p. 557, where he says: “The Lord’s supper is the sacrament of the altar which, in the form of bread and wine, the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which have been sacrificed for us, imparts to the believing communicant the sin-forgiving efficacy of 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 power of His death, i.e. the forgiveness of sins, is communicated. From the bread and wine Christ is supposed to 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 connection of this evangelist with Peter, it is to be regarded as the most original. Yet the supplementary statements furnished by the others are serviceable in the way of exposition, for they let us see what view was taken of 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 Luk_22:19. According to Gess, I. p. 147, the variations in question are to be accounted for by supposing that, while the elements were circulating, Jesus Himself made use of a variety of expressions. But there can be no doubt that on an occasion of 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 sacred nature of the situation, especially as the texts do not lead us to suppose that there was any further speaking; comp., in particular, Mar_14:23-24.