Matthew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(28) For this 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 spoken by our Lord, we can understand its being passed over by some reporters or transcribers whose attention had not been specially called to the great prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34. That prophecy was, however, certain to 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 accept the other alternative, it would still be true that the covenant of which our Lord spoke was ipso facto new, and was therefore that of which Jeremiah had spoken, and that the insertion of the word (looking to the general freedom 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 exception of Hebrews 9:16, but see Note there) the best equivalent for the Greek word. The popular use of the “New Testament” for the collected writings of the apostolic age, makes its employment here and in the parallel passages singularly infelicitous. (2) That the “blood of 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 had been 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 essence of that covenant was 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,” Jeremiah 31:33)—a truer knowledge of God, and through that knowledge the forgiveness of iniquity; and all this, they were told, was to be brought about through the sacrifice of the 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 presented to 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, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how the words “for many” had been interpreted.

For the remission of sins.—This had been from the outset the substance of the gospel which 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 connection with 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 of the bread, an allusive reference to the mysterious words of John 6:53-54. In the contrast between the “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 represented by the blood, but also of the difference between the outward character of the Old Covenant and the inward nature of the New. It is, perhaps, not altogether outside the range of associations thus suggested to note that to drink together of a cup filled with human blood had come to be regarded as a kind of sacrament of closest and perpetual union, and as such was chosen by evildoers—as in the case of Catiline (Sallust, Catil. c. 22)—to bind their partners in guilt more closely to 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 cannot pass, however, from these words without dwelling for a moment on their evidential aspect. For eighteen centuries—without, so far as we can trace, any interruption, even for a single week—the Christian Church, 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 social feast (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. But this being granted, we have in our Lord’s words, at the very time when He had spoken of 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 greater honour than Moses, and was the Mediator of 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 passover supper, by which we commemorate a much greater deliverance than that of Israel out of Egypt. Take, eat; accept of Christ as he is offered to you; receive the atonement, approve of it, submit to his grace and his government. Meat looked upon, 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 blessed fruits of the breaking of his body. The blood of Christ is signified and represented by the wine. He gave thanks, to teach us 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 great blessing which is, in the Lord's supper, conferred on all true believers; it is the foundation of all other blessings. He takes leave of such communion; and assures them of a happy meeting again at last; Until that day when I drink it new with you, may be understood of the joys and glories of the future state, which the saints shall partake with the Lord Jesus. That will 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 recollect that the feast cost him 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 "covenant or 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 covenant which 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, or sanctioned by my blood." In ancient times, covenants or contracts were ratified by slaying an animal; by the shedding of its blood, imprecating similar vengeance if either party failed in the compact. See the notes at Hebrews 9:16. So Jesus says the covenant which God is about to form with people the new covenant, or the gospel economy is sealed or ratified with my blood.

Which is shed for many for the remission of sins - In order that sins may be remitted, or forgiven. That is, this is the appointed way by which God will pardon transgressions. That blood is efficacious for the pardon of sin:

1. Because it 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 shed for 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 pleased to accept it 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 personally in 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 own Son. That he died "in the stead or place" of sinners is abundantly clear from 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-Brown Bible Commentary

Mt 26:17-30. Preparation for and Last Celebration of the Passover Announcement of the Traitor, and Institution of the Supper. ( = Mr 14:12-26; Lu 22:7-23; Joh 13:1-3, 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,.... That is, the red wine in the cup, was an emblem and representation of his precious blood, whereby was exhibited a new dispensation, or administration of the covenant of grace; and by which it was ratified and confirmed; and whereby all the blessings of it, such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and eternal life, 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 called the blood of the covenant, Exodus 24:8. But the second covenant, or the new administration of the covenant of grace, for which reason it is called the New Testament, is exhibited and established in 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 elect of 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 of all their sins was procured, in a way consistent with, and honourable to the justice of God; full satisfaction being made to the law of God, for all their transgressions,

(e) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 5. c. 3.

Geneva Study Bible

{o} For this is my blood of the {p} new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of 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 covenant is 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 described as sacrificial blood that 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 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 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 (דַּם הַבְּרִית, Exodus 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 Hebrews 9:20. In a similar way Moses ratified the covenant with God by means of the sacrificial blood 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, 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 Jeremiah 31:31 ff., hence called the new one (by Paul and Luke) in contradistinction to the old one under the law. See on 1 Corinthians 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. Leviticus 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 Galatians 1:4; 1 Corinthians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 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 Matthew 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 1 Corinthians 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, 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 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 1 Corinthians 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 Luke 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, Mark 14:23-24.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Matthew 26:28. τὸ αἷμά μου: the very colour of the wine suggestive; hence called αἷμα σταφυλῆς in Deuteronomy 32:14; my blood, pointing to the passion, like the breaking of the bread.—τῆς διαθήκης (for the 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 covenant of course is new. It is Jeremiah’s new covenant come at last. The blood of the covenant suggests an analogy between it and the covenant with Israel ratified by sacrifice (Exodus 24:8).—τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον: the shedding for many suggests sacrificial analogies; the present participle vividly conceives that which is about to happen as now happening; περὶ πολλῶν is an echo of ἀντὶ πολλῶν in Matthew 20:28.—εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: not in Mk., and may be a comment on Christ’s words, supplied by Mt.; but it is a true comment. For what else could the blood be shed according to Levitical analogies and even Jeremiah’s new covenant, which includes among its blessings the complete forgiveness of sin?

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

28. this is my blood] The blood of the sacrifice was the seal and assurance of the old covenant, so wine is the seal of 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 passages where the word occurs in N.T. the new covenant is contrasted with “the covenant which God made with our fathers,” Acts 3:25. It need hardly be remarked that the title of the New Testament is derived from this passage.

for many] i. e. to save many; “for” is used in the sense of dying 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 shown to 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, of the New) in contradistinction to the Old: see Exodus 24:8, sc. “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said “Behold the blood of the covenant,” etc.—διαθήκης, testament, disposition, dispensation) Many theologians of the Reformed Church, and some even of the Evangelical communion,[1135] endeavoured in the last generation to reduce the whole scheme of Christian doctrine to the form of a covenant: a method pre-eminently suited to the Jewish theology; but Scripture expresses the 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 not exactly coinciding with its original meaning: nor can we easily speak of the NEW, διαθήκη, or Dispensation (Dispositio), except in contrast to the Old, either expressed or implied. In short, the very words ברית and ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ [by which the Old and New Dispensation are severally indicated] differ from each other, and their difference corresponds wonderfully with the actual state of the case. For the word ברית accords more with the Old economy, which had the form of a covenant, whereas διαθήκη accords more with the New economy, which has the form of a testament; on which account the Talmudists employ the Greek word דייתיקי [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 account of our intimate union with God: see John 17:21-22, 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, remission of sins) the especial blessing of the New Testament dispensation. [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 unspeakably precious. This (τοῦτο, as before, ver. 26) is my blood. This which I here give you. The blood separated from 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 good manuscripts and modern editors, but it gives the sense intended. The Vulgate has, novi testamenti. The old covenant between God 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 sacramentally applied ratifies the covenant individually to each Christian" (Sadler). The evangelical covenant supersedes the Judaic, even as the sacrifice of Christ fulfils and supersedes the Levitical sacrifices. Which is 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" (Revelation 13:8) was now offering the eternal sacrifice. The whole ordinance is significant of the completion of the atonement. "Many" here is equivalent to "all." Redemption is universal, though all men do not accept the offer (see on ch. 20:28). Even Calvin says, "Non partem mundi tantum designat, sed totum humanum genus." For the remission of sins. "For without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22); "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). The sacrifices of the Law, the blood of bulls and goats, could not take away sin; at most they gave a ritual and ceremonial purification. But what the Mosaic Law could not effect was accomplished by the precious blood of Christ, who offered himself a spotless and perfect Victim unto God. This is our Lord's most complete announcement of the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice, which is appropriated by faith in the reception of 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, of course, Christ's words spoken at the time, and are of most important bearing on what is called the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist. Matthew 26:28

Vincent's Word Studies

Testament (διαθήκης)

From διατίθημι, to distribute; dispose of. Hence of the disposition of one's property. On the idea of disposing or arranging is based that 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 connection with dividing the victims slain in ratification of covenants (Genesis 15:9-18). Covenant is the general Old Testament sense of the word (1 Kings 20:34; Isaiah 28:15; 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 Testament in any other sense than that of covenant, with the exception of Hebrews 9:15-17, where it is testament. We cannot admit this exception, since we regard that passage as one of the best illustrations of the sense of covenant. See on Hebrews 9:15-17. Render here as Rev., covenant.

Is shed (ἐκχυννόμενον)

The present participle, is being shed. Christ's thought goes forward to the consummation.