Matthew 26:28

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.

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.

{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.

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?

(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.

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.)

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 .