GEBible — Godless Engineer's Bible App
Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He said, “Go into the city to a certain person, and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.” ’ ”
The disciples did as Jesus commanded them, and they prepared the Passover. Now when evening had come, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
Matthew 26:17-20 sits inside this longer paragraph.
Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He said, “Go into the city to a certain person, and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.” ’ ”
The disciples did as Jesus commanded them, and they prepared the Passover. Now when evening had come, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. As they were eating, he said, “Most certainly I tell you that one of you will betray me.”
Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
He said, “Go into the city to a certain person, and tell him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.” ’ ”
The disciples did as Jesus commanded them, and they prepared the Passover.
Now when evening had come, he was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
The fyrst daye of swete breed the disciples cam to Iesus sayinge vnto him: where wylt thou that we prepare for the to eate the paschall lambe?
And he sayd: Go into the cite vnto soche a man and saye to him: the master sayeth my tyme is at hande I will kepe myne ester at thy housse with my disciples.
And the disciples did as Iesus had apoynted them and made redy the esterlambe.
When the even was come he sate doune with the.xii.
Nowe on the first day of the feast of vnleauened bread the disciples came to Iesus, saying vnto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the Passeouer?
And he said, Goe yee into the citie to such a man, and say to him, The master saieth, My time is at hande: I will keepe the Passeouer at thine house with my disciples.
And the disciples did as Iesus had giuen them charge, and made readie the Passeouer.
So when the Euen was come, hee sate downe with the twelue.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 This was the fourteenth day of the first month:…
This was the fourteenth day of the first month: and the first day of unleavened bread should have been the fifteenth, but because this day’s evening (which after the manner of the Romans was referred to the day before) did belong by the Jews’ manner to the day following, therefore it is called the first day of unleavened bread.
Christ verily purposing to bring us into our country out of hand, and so to abrogate the figure of the Law, fulfilleth the Law, neglecting the contrary tradition and custom of the Jews, and there withall showeth that all things shall so come to pass by the ministry of men, that the secret counsel of God shall govern them.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv17–20 17 Now the first day of the feast of…
17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
Ver. 17. Now the first day] That is, on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the law. The priests, for political respects, had adjourned this feast to the sixteenth day, being the Sabbath, against the letter of the law, that the celebrity might be the greater; and the people were ruled by them. Our Saviour followeth not a multitude, nor observeth man’s tradition herein, but God’s prescription: no more must we. This St Luke plainly intimateth in his εδει, Luk 22:7. Then came the day of unleavened bread when the Passover ought to be killed; though the custom were otherwise.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 No one of the evangelists relates this history fully,…
No one of the evangelists relates this history fully, but Mark relates the former part more fully than Matthew: Mar 14:12-16 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? And he sendet forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say you to the good man of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. Luk 22:7-13, differeth a little in the former part of this relation: he saith, Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, &c.; so he goeth on, Luk 22:10-13, varying scarce at all from what Mark saith. The variations of the evangelists are of no moment, none contradicts the other, only one hath some circumstances omitted by the other. Our Lord was now at Bethany, whither he went every night from Jerusalem. The day was come for the killing of the passover. What that day was, the law hath fixed, Exo 12:6; the fourteenth day of the first month (Nisan) in the evening; or, between the two evenings, that is, as is mostly agreed, betwixt the declining of the sun after noon and the setting of the sun; for they counted one evening began when the sun was declined, which was the second evening of that day, and another evening (belonging to the ensuing day) beginning at sunset. Between these two evenings the passover was to be killed. Now this fourteenth day was called the first day of unleavened bread, though strictly it was not so, according to the Jewish account of days, from sunset to sunset; but it was so after the Roman account, who count the days as we do, from midnight to midnight. For the Jews began their feast of unleavened bread from their eating the passover; so as their fourteenth day must needs take in so many hours as were betwixt the setting of the sun and midnight of the first day of unleavened bread, which held to the end of the twenty-first day; so were seven entire days with a part of another. Matthew and Mark bring in the disciples first asking our Saviour (knowing his resolution to keep the passover) where he would have it prepared. He said (Luke saith) to Peter and John, Go into the city to such a man, &c. Mark and Luke here supply something omitted by Matthew, for Matthew only mentions their going to the master of the house, and telling him from Christ, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. The other two evangelists mention more in their instructions; telling us that he told them, that when they came into the city, they should see a man carrying a pitcher of water, whom they should follow into what house soever he should go in, and there they should say to the master of the house, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. Mark and Luke add, Where is the guest chamber? No doubt but at that time most householders who had convenient houses did prepare chambers for the several passover companies. Our Lord here gave his disciples an eminent proof of his Divine nature in so particularly telling them what they should meet with in the city, and disposing the heart of this householder to so free a reception of him. For all three evangelists agree, that the disciples did as Jesus commanded, and found as he had said unto them. And they made ready the passover. There was a great deal of work to be done, of which none of the evangelists say any thing. Some upon the reading of this may be thinking, Where had they the lamb? When was it offered? &c. According to the law, in Exo 12:3, the lamb was to be taken up the tenth day, and kept to the fourteenth; it might either be brought by those that did eat it, or bought at Jerusalem, for They had great markets for that purpose some days before the passover. Whether all the lambs thus eaten by the paschal societies were first to be brought to the temple, and then killed, and the blood sprinkled on the altar, and poured out at the foot of it, and their fat and entrails offered, I much doubt; I rather think this was only to he done with some of them, instead of all. That some were so killed by the priests, their blood so sprinkled and poured out upon and at the foot of the altar, I doubt not, though God having no temple nor altar built at that time, there be no such thing in the law, Exo 12:1-51; but at Hezekiah’s passover, 2Ch 30:16,17, we find the Levites killing the passover, and the priests sprinkling the blood; but, as I said before, I do not think that the priests and Levites killed the lambs for all the passover societies. The great time that it must have taken, and the vast quantity of blood there would have been, the long time it must have taken to cleanse the entrails, makes it appear impossible to be done in four or five hours, for they had no longer time to kill it in. They did not begin to kill till after the evening sacrifice, for the day was done with, and that was between two and three of the clock, and they were to finish by sunset, for then the other evening began. This inclineth me to think that every lamb was not so killed and offered, only some instead of all. But what the disciples did as to these matters, the Scripture hath not told us. It is enough for us that we are told the passover was made ready, and we may be assured that nothing in the preparing of it was omitted, which by the law of God was required as to this sacred action. It was not the business of the evangelists to acquaint us with every particular circumstance, only to let us know that our Lord did keep the passover, and in the close of that feast institute his supper, to which relation our evangelist now comes.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 The time for the celebration of the passover being…
The time for the celebration of the passover being now at hand, Christ sends two of his disciples to Jerusalem, to prepare things necessary in order thereunto: accordingly they enter the city, and find the master of an house, whose heart Christ, by his divine power, had so inclined, that he willingly accommodated them upon this occasion. Our blessed Saviour had not a lamb of his own, and possibly no money in his purse to buy one, but he finds as excellent accommodations in this poor man’s house, as if he had dwelt in Ahab’s ivory palace, and had had the provisions of Solomon’s table.
Learn hence, that Christ has such an influence upon, and command over, the spirits of men, that he can incline them to do what service soever he pleaseth for him. When Christ has a passover to celebrate, he will prepare an house, and dispose the heart to a free reception of himself.
Read full note →
Learn, 2. That Christ, being under the law, observes and keeps the law of the passover. Thus he fulfilled all righteousness; and although the ceremonial law was to receive its abolishment in the death of Christ, yet all the time of his life he punctually observes it.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv17–20 And he said, go into the city to such…
And he said, go into the city to such a man,.... That is, to such a man in the city of Jerusalem, for, as yet, they were in Bethany, or at the Mount of Olives however, without the city; he does not mention the man's name, but describes him, as Mark and Luke say, and tells them, "there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house, where he entereth in", Mar 14:13; who seems to be not the master of the house, but a servant, that was sent on such an errand. This is a very considerable instance of our Lord's prescience of future contingencies; he knew beforehand, that exactly at the time that the disciples would enter Jerusalem, such a man, belonging to such a house, would be returning with a pitcher of water in his hand; and they should meet him; and follow him, where he went, which would be a direction to them what house to prepare the passover in;
and say unto him; not to the man bearing the pitcher of water; but, as the other Evangelists say, to the good man of the house, the owner of it, who probably might be one of Christ's disciples secretly; for many of the chief rulers in Jerusalem believed on Christ, though they did not openly confess him, for fear of the Pharisees, as Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathea; and this man might be one of them, or some other man of note and wealth; since they were to find, as they did, a large upper room furnished and prepared. For, it seems, that without mentioning his name, the man would know him by their language, he dictates to them in the following clause, who they meant;
Read full note →
the master saith; the Syriac and Persic versions read, our master; thine and ours, the great master in Israel, the teacher sent from God:
my time is at hand; not of eating the passover, as if it was distinct from that of the Jews, and peculiar to himself, for he ate it at the usual time, and when the Jews ate theirs; and which time was fixed and known by everybody, and could be no reason to move the master of the house to receive him: but he means the time of his death, that he had but a little while to live; and that this instance of respect would be the last he would have an opportunity of showing him whilst living, and the last time Christ would have an opportunity of seeing him; and he might say this to prepare him to meet the news of his death with less surprise:
I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples; not with him and his family, but with his disciples, who were a family, and a society of themselves, and a sufficient number to eat the passover together; for there might be two companies eating their distinct passovers in one house, and even in one room: concerning which is the following rule,
, "two societies that eat in one house"; the one turn their faces this way and eat, and the other turn their faces that way and eat, and an heating vessel (in which they heat the water to mix with the wine) in the middle; and when the servant stands to mix, he shuts his mouth, and turns his face till he comes to his company, and eats; and the bride turns her face and eats (o).''
(o) Misn. Pesachim, c. 7. sect. 13.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv17, 18, 20 On the first day of unleavened bread - Being…
On the first day of unleavened bread - Being Thursday, the fourteenth day of the first month, Exod. xii, 6, 15. Mark xiv, 12 Luke xxii, 7
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv17–20 Verse 17. Now the first day of the feast…
Verse 17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread] As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of the month, Le 23:5-6; Nu 28:16-17, this could not have been, properly, the first day of that feast; but as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth, Ex 12:18, this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread. The evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name. See Mr 14:12; Lu 22:7.
Where wilt thou that we prepare] How astonishing is this, that HE who created all things, whether visible or invisible, and by whom all things were upheld, should so empty himself as not to be proprietor of a single house in his whole creation, to eat the last passover with his disciples! This is certainly a mystery, and so, less or more is every thing that God does. But how inveterate and destructive must the nature of sin be, when such emptying and humiliation were necessary to its destruction! It is worthy of note what the Talmudists say, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not let out their houses to those who came to the annual feasts; but afforded all accommodations of this kind gratis. A man might therefore go and request the use of any room, on such an occasion, which was as yet unoccupied. The earthen jug, and the skin of the sacrifice, were left with the host. See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 21.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 Mat 26:17. On the first day of unleavened bread…
Mat 26:17. On the first day of unleavened bread — Being Thursday, the fourteenth day of the first month, Exo 12:6; Exo 12:15. The disciples came, saying, Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover? — They meant at what house. And he said, Go into the city to such a man — This implies that Jesus named the person to whom they were sent, though the evangelists have not thought it of importance to mention his name. He told them further, that on their entrance into the city they should find one of the man’s servants in the street, bearing a pitcher of water. This person he ordered them to follow, without saying any thing to him, because as he was carrying the water home he would lead them straight to his master’s house, with which, it seems, the disciples were not acquainted. This direction, and some others, mentioned Mar 14:14-15; Luk 22:11-12, (where see the notes,) were given by Jesus to his disciples, and these predictions were uttered to show them how completely he foreknew every thing that should befall him, and to convince them that his sufferings were all predetermined of God; and that, on his part, they were all submitted to voluntarily. The disciples did as Jesus had appointed — and found every thing to happen exactly as Jesus had foretold, which doubtless would tend no little to confirm their faith in him, and prepare them for the trial they would so soon have to pass through.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 See also Mar 14:12-16; Luk 22:7-13.
See also Mar 14:12-16; Luk 22:7-13.
Mat 26:17
Read full note →
The first day ... - The feast continued “eight” days, including the day on which the paschal lamb was killed and eaten, Exo 12:15. That was the fourteenth day of the month Abib, answering to parts of our March and April.
Of unleavened bread - Called so because during those eight days no bread made with yeast or leaven was allowed to be eaten. Luke says, “in which the passover must be killed” - that is, in which the “paschal lamb,” or the lamb eaten on the occasion, was killed. The word in the original, translated “Passover,” commonly means, not the “feast” itself, but the “lamb” that was killed on the occasion, Exo 12:43; Num 9:11; Joh 18:28. See also 1Co 5:7, where Christ, “our Passover,” is said to be slain for us; that is, our paschal lamb, so called on account of his innocence, and his being offered as a victim or “sacrifice” for our sins.
Mat 26:18
Go into the city to such a man - That is, Jerusalem, called the city by way of eminence.
Luke says that the disciples whom he sent were Peter and John. The man to whom they were to go he did not mention by name, but he told them that when they came into the city, a man would meet them bearing a pitcher of water. See Mark and Luke. Him they were to follow, and in the house which he entered they would find a room prepared. The name of the man was not mentioned. The “house” in which they were to keep the Passover was not mentioned. The reason of this probably was, that Christ was desirous of concealing from “Judas” the place where they would keep the Passover. He was acquainted with the design of Judas to betray him. He knew that if Judas was acquainted with the place “beforehand,” he could easily give information to the chief priests, and it would give them a favorable opportunity to surprise them, and apprehend “him” without making a tumult. Though it was certain that he would not be delivered up before the time appointed by the Father, yet it was proper “to use the means” to prevent it. There can be little doubt that Jesus was acquainted with this man, and that he was a disciple. The direction which he gave his disciples most clearly proves that he was omniscient. Amid so great a multitude going at that time into the city, it was impossible to know that “a particular man would be met” - a man bearing a pitcher of water - unless Jesus had all knowledge, and was therefore divine.
The Master saith - This was the name by which Jesus was probably known among the disciples, and one which he directed them to give him. See Mat 23:8, Mat 23:10. It means, literally, “the teacher,” as opposed to “the disciple,” or learner; not the “master,” as opposed to the “servant or slave.” The fact that they used this name as if the man would know whom they meant, and the fact that the man understood them and made no further inquiries, shows that he was acquainted with Jesus, and was probably himself a disciple.
My time is at hand - That is, “is near.” By “his time,” here, may be meant either his time to eat the Passover, or the time of his death. It has been supposed by many that Jesus, in accordance with a part of the Jews who rejected traditions, anticipated the usual observance of the Passover, or kept it one day sooner. The Pharisees had devised many forms of ascertaining when the month commenced. They placed witnesses around the heights of the temple to observe the first appearance of the new moon; they examined the witnesses with much formality, and endeavored also to obtain the exact time by astronomical calculations. Others held that the month properly commenced when the moon was visible. Thus, it is said a difference arose between them about the time of the Passover, and that Jesus kept it one day sooner than most of the people. The foundation of the opinion that he anticipated the usual time of keeping the Passover is the following:
1. In Joh 18:28, it is said that on the day on which our Lord was crucified, and of course the day after he had eaten the Passover, the chief priests would not go into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, “but that they might eat the passover,” evidently meaning that it was to be eaten that day.
2. In Joh 19:14, the day on which he was crucified is called “the preparation of the passover” - that is, the day on which it was prepared to be eaten in the evening.
3. In Joh 19:31, the day in which our Lord lay in the grave was called the great day of the Sabbath - “a high day;” that is, the day after the Passover was killed, the Sabbath occurring on the first day of the feast properly, and therefore a day of special solemnity; yet our Saviour had partaken of it two days before, and therefore the day before the body of the people. If this opinion be true, then the phrase “my time is at hand means my time for keeping the Passover is near. Whether this opinion be true or not, there may be a reference also to his death. The man with whom they were to go was probably a disciple of his, though perhaps a secret one. Jesus might purpose to keep the Passover at his house, that he might inform him more particularly respecting his death, and prepare him for it. He sent, therefore, to him and said, “I will keep the passover ‘at thy house.’”
Mark and Luke add that he would show them “a large upper room, furnished and prepared.” Ancient writers remark that, at the time of the great feasts, the houses in Jerusalem were all open to receive guests - that they were in a manner common to the people of Judea; and there is no doubt, therefore, that the master of a house would have it ready on such occasions for company. It is possible, also, that there might have been an agreement between this man and our Lord that he would prepare his house for him, though this was unknown to the disciples. The word rendered “furnished” means, literally, “spread;” that is, “spread” with carpets, and with “couches” on which to recline at the table, after the manner of the East. See the notes at Mat 23:6.
Mat 26:19
They made ready the passover - That is, they procured a lamb, multitudes of which were kept for sale in the temple; they had it killed and flayed by the priests, and the blood poured by the altar; they roasted the lamb, and prepared the bitter herbs, the sauce, and the unleavened bread.
This was done, it seems, while our Lord was absent, by the two disciples.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv17–20 The first day of the azymes; unleavened bread. St.…
The first day of the azymes; unleavened bread. St. Mark (xiv. 12.) adds, when they sacrificed the Pasch: and St. Luke (xxii. 7.) says, And the day of the unleavened bread came; on which it was necessary that the Pasch (i.e. the Paschal lamb) should be killed. From hence it follows, that Christ sent his apostles that very day (the 14th day of the month of Nisan) on which, in the evening, or at night, the Pasch was to be eaten; and which was to be with unleavened bread. It is true, the 15th day of that month is called (Exodus xii. 1.) the first day of unleavened bread: but we must take notice, that the Jews began their feasts, or festivals, from sunset of the evening before; and consequently on the evening of the 14th day of the moon: at which time there was to be no leavened bread in any of their houses. This shews that Christ eat the Pasch, or Paschal lamb, after sunset. And when the Paschal supper was over, he consecrated the blessed Eucharist, in unleavened bread, as the Latin Church doth. There are two or three difficulties relating to this matter in St. John, of which in their proper places. (Witham) --- There were four passovers during Christ’s public ministry. The 1st was after the marriage feast of Cana, in the 31st year of Jesus, and the 779th from the foundation of Rome. to derive pascha from the Greek, paschein, to suffer, is a mistake, as St. Augustine observes; tract. lv. in Joah. It is certainly taken from the Hebrew, and signifies a passing by, or passing over: 1st, because the children of Israel passed in haste on that night out of the land of Egypt; 2d, because the angel, who on that night killed all the first-born of the Egyptians, seeing the doors of the Israelites stained with the blood of the paschal lamb, passed by all theirs untouched; 3d, because that was a figure of our Saviour passing out of this life to his eternal Father. Yet it must be observed that this same word, pascha, or passover, is used sometimes for the paschal lamb, that was sacrificed; (Luke xxii. 7.) elsewhere, for the first day of the paschal feast and solemnity, which lasted seven days; (Matthew xvi. 2; Ezechiel xlv. 21.) for the sabbath-day, which occurred within the seven days of the solemnity; (John xix. 14.) and also for all the sacrifices made during the seven days’ fest. The Passover was the most solemn of the old law. When God ordered the Israelites to sprinkle the blood of the lamb upon their door-posts, it was solely with a view of signifying, that the blood of the true Lamb was to be the distinctive mark of as many as should be saved. Every thing was mysteriously and prophetical. A bone of the lamb was not to be broken; and they broke not the arms or legs of Jesus Christ, on the cross. The lamb was to be free from blemish; to express the perfect sanctity of Jesus Christ, the immaculate Lamb of God. The paschal lamb was to be sacrificed and eaten; because Christ was to suffer and die for us: and unless we eat his flesh, we shall have no life in us. The door-posts of the Israelites were to be sprinkled with blood, that the destroying angel might pass over them; for with the blood of Christ our souls are to be purified, that sin and death may not prevail against us. In every house was eaten a whole lamb; and Christ, at communion, is received whole and entire by every faithful soul. --- The manner in which it was to be eaten, shews the proper dispositions for Christians when they receive the blessed sacrament. The roasting by fire, expresses divine charity; the unleavened bread, sincerity, truth, and a good conscience; the bitter herbs, repentance and contrition for sin; the girded loins and shod feet, the restraint upon our passions and lusts, and a readiness to follow the rules of the gospel; the staff, our mortal pilgrimage, and that having no lasting dwelling here, we should make the best of our way to our true country, the heavenly Chanaan. --- On this day the passover was to be eaten, at least by a part of the people, according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke; i.e. according to some, by the Galileans; for, according to St. John, it appears that the priests, and the Jews properly so called, such as dwelt in Judea, did not immolate it till the next day. (John xiii. 1, xviii. 28, and xix. 14.) (Bible de Vence) --- but we have here again to remark, that the Jews began their day from sunset of the previous day.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v17
THIRD SECTION
CHRIST THE PASCHAL LAMB, AND THE LORD’S SUPPER
Read full note →
26:17–30
(Mar_14:12-26; Luk_22:7-39; Joh_13:1 to Joh_18:1)
17Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where will thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? 18And he said, Go into the city to such a man [to a certain man, πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα], and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. 19And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed [directed, συνέταξεν] them; and they made [and made] ready the passoMatthew 26:20Now when the even [evening] was come, he sat down [reclined at table]29 with the twelve [disciples]. 30 21And as they did eat [were eating, ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν, comp. Mat_26:26], he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall [will] betray me. 22And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them [each one]31 to say unto him, Lord, is it I? 23And he answered and said, 24He that dippeth his [the, τήν] hand with me in the dish, the same shall [will] betray me. The Son of man goeth [departeth, ὑπάγὲι] as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been [it were] good for that man if he had not been born.32 25Then Judas, which [who] betrayed him, answered and said, Master [Rabbi, ῥαββί], is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said [it].
26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread,33 and blessed34 it,35 and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the [a] cup,36 and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the [new]37 testament [my blood, the blood of the new covenant, τὸ αῖ̓μά μου, τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης],38 which is shed for many for the remission [for remission, εἰς ἄφεσιν] 29of sins. But [And] I say unto you, I will not [in no wise]39 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.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Mat_26:17. The first day of unleavened bread.
On the 14th of Nisan the leaven was removed, and the unleavened loaves (המצות) 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 τῇδὲπρώ τῃ τῶνἀζύμων 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 ποῦ 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; πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα.—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 ἐντολὴ καινή, 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 μετὰ τὸ δειπνν͂σαι, 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,40 Thomas Aquinas, Calvin,41 Beza, etc. Against it were Tatian, Ammonius, Hilary,42 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 (חרוסת), 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 εὐλογήσαςἔκλασε (comp. Luk_22:19 and 1Co_11:24, εὑχαριστήσας, έ̓κλασε: “Fregit post Benedictionem; contra transubstantiationem. Accident enim, quale post benedictionem panem esse ajunt, non potest frangi.” From the giving of thanks (εὐχαριστήσας) and blessing (εὐλογήσας) the offering, the holy communion is called εὐ χαριστία. see the patristic passages in Suicer’s Thesaurus, sub verbo.—P. S.]
Take, eat; this is My body.—This, in the neuter (τοῦτο). Therefore not directly ὁ ἄρτος. 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.43 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 καινὴ διαθήκη), absolutely exclude the sense that the wine in the cup was actually itself the New Covenant. For all these reasons, ἐστί 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 σῶμα 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 ἐστί, 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 ἐστί as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The ἐστί 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 ἐστί (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 (הָא גוּשְׁמִי or בְּשָׂרִי) 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 ἐστί 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 ἐστί 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 ἐστί 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 (ἐστί), 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: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον (not: οὗτος ὁ οἶνος) ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι, 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: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), in living and saving faith (comp. Joh_6:51 sqq.); so that this symbolical participation of the elements represents a spiritual, living, and vivifying κοινωνία 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 ἐστί, 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 ἐστί as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The ἐστί 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 ἐστί (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 πάντες, 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: ὁσάκις εἂν πινητε, according to the report of St Paul. Bengel: “Si una species sufficeret, bibendum esset potius. Etiam 1Co_15:25 τό 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.—דַּם הַבְּרִית, 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 (τὸπερὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον)—Present tense. [Compare the addition to σῶμα in Luke: τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον, 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 περί, Luke ὑπέρ. While these prepositions are often interchanged, ὑπέρ is the more definite expression. Matthew, however, adds the explanation, εἰς ἄφεσιν; 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;44 but it seems rather to intimate that this fourth cup was drunk, as usual, in addition (after the eucharistic ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας), 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, ὑμνήσαντες.—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.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The relations between the typical and the real salvation by judgment, between the typical and the real redemption, the typical and the real Passover, the typical and real covenant institution, the typical and real feast of the covenant (Exo_24:3-11). On the significance of the Passover, compare also the typological writings of Bähr, Kurtz, Sartorius, [Fair-bairn], etc.
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 ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, 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).45
Meyer, p. 443,46 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.47
[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,48 as Ebrard is of the Calvinistic,49 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,50 he gives up the literal interpretation of the ἐστί, 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: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. 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 and communio sanctorum, which should bind all pious hearts to Christ and each other, and fill them with the holiest and tenderest affections, has been the innocent occasion of the bitterest and most violent passions, and the most uncharitable abuse. The eucharistic controversies, before and after the Reformation, are among the most unrefreshing and apparently fruitless in church history. Theologians will have much to answer for at the judgment-day, for having perverted the sacred feast of Divine love into an apple of discord. No wonder that Melanchthon’s last wish and prayer was, to be delivered from the rabies theologorum. Fortunately, the blessing of the holy Communion does not depend upon the scientific interpretation and understanding of the words of institution—however desirable this may be—but upon the promise of the Lord, and upon childlike faith which receives it, though it may not fully understand the mystery of the ordinance. Christians celebrated it with most devotion and profit before they contended about the true meaning of those words, and obscured their vision by all sorts of scholastic theories and speculations. Fortunately, even now Christians of different denominations, and holding different opinions, can unite around the table of their common Lord and Saviour, and feel one with Him and in Him who died for them all, and feeds them with His life once sacrificed on the cross, but now living for ever. Let them hold fast to what they agree in, and charitably judge of their differences; looking hopefully forward to the marriage-supper of the Lamb in the kingdom of glory, when we shall understand and adore, in perfect harmony, the infinite mystery of the love of God in His Son our Saviour.—P. S.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The Passover and the Lord’s Supper.—Both in their relation to circumcision and baptism.—The question of the disciples, Where wilt Thou, etc. (Mat_26:17)? an expression of their feelings and state: 1. Of their legal anxiety; 2. of their painful embarrassment and sad presentiments; 3. of their want of decision.—The disciples helped forward the doom of their Master: 1. unconsciously, and yet 2. inevitably.—(a) as instruments of the Lord, and (b) as representatives of mankind.—The Lord’s silent guests.—The secret friends of God in all times concealed in Jerusalem, ready at the critical moment to do the Lord service (the friend at Bethphage, the friend in Jerusalem, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus).—When it was evening (Mat_26:20): the supper in the Egyptian night of fear, and in that of Mount Zion.—The feelings with which the Lord celebrates the institution of the Supper, in presence of the traitor: 1. The moral horror which shook His whole being; 2. the stern solemnity which amazed all the disciples; 3. the compassion which revealed itself in the severest self-denial; 4. a boldness of love which established the feast of heaven in spite of all the murmurs of hell.—The traitor amidst the preparations of the Passover; or, how hardness of heart ripens under the midday sun of tender love.—The deportment of the Lord toward the traitor, an everlasting type of all true ecclesiastical discipline: a holy frame of mind, a penetrating eye, a general, all-comprehensive judgment.—One of you (Mat_26:21).—The important question, Is it I? a question of preparation for the sacrament.—The decisive conflict at the table of grace, or the most quiet and the greatest victory of the Lord (see my Leben Jesu, ii. 3, p. 1327).—Judas, master of hypocritical dissimulation, unmasked by the Master of divine simplicity. 1. The points of development in his hypocrisy:—(a) his receiving the bag, and deceiving the disciples; (b) the pretence of care for the poor; (c) the question, Is it I? (d) the kiss. 2. His detection in its corresponding points of interest.—The institution of the Supper an expression of the Lord’s supreme certainty of victory before His final conflict.—How the Lord transfused the Old Testament into the New: 1. In all its parts generally; 2. in the institution of the Eucharist especially.—Christ present at the first supper, and present at all others: 1. Always present, because present the first time. He alone can distribute, interpret, and make it effectual. 2. Always present, as present the first time. Distinguished from the sacrament; presenting Himself in it.—The bread and the wine in their inseparable unity: 1. With each other: the broken body, the expiating blood; 2. one after the other: the assurance of reconciliation, the new life.—The Eucharist, the great feast of the Church: 1. A true feast (for the nourishment of the spiritual life); 2. a sacred feast (separating from all sinful enjoyment); 3. a covenant feast (sealing redemption); 4. a love feast (uniting the redeemed); 5. a supper feast (fore-festival of death, of the end of the world, of the coming of Christ).—The Lord’s Supper a glance of light into the new world of glory in the shadows of the present world: 1. A sure pledge that the old world is perishing as Christ’s body was broken; 2. a sure pledge that the new world will appear penetrated by the eternal resurrection life of Christ.—And when they had sung a hymn (Mat_26:30).—The Christian enters upon his final conflict strengthened by the Supper: 1. Upon the deciding conflict of youth (over the brook Kedron); 2. upon the repeated conflicts of adult life (Gethsemane); 3. upon the final conflict of death (imprisonment and Calvary).—Judas the infinitely dark riddle of Christianity; Christ its eternally bright mystery.—The Lord’s household company the figure and the germ of the Church.
Starke:—Nov. Bibl. Tub.; Out of the depths of the humiliation of Jesus stream forth the brightest rays of His Divine omniscience, and power over the human heart.—Happy he into whose heart Jesus comes! 1Co_5:7-8.—Hedinger: Is it marvellous that there should have been a wicked one, and a hypocrite, among the disciples?—We may publicly speak of prevailing sins, but should not mention the sinner by name.—Cramer: Many have enemies and traitors frequenting their tables.—Osiander: Foreknowledge and prediction do not make sinners sin, 1Co_11:27.—Quesnel: The communion of the body and blood of Christ a pledge of the fellowship of Heaven.—In the worthy participation our hope of perfect enjoyment of the transcendent blessings of the kingdom of glory is strengthened.—The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament which must abide in the Church until the Lord comes.
Lisco:—In the glorified world a glorified feast.
Heubner:—Jesus was subject to the law, observed all the feasts as a perfect Israelite; thus approving Himself a true lover of His Church and His country—To Him must all hearts and all doors fly open.—Love deals forbearingly with the greatest sinners.—The anxiety of the disciples a joy to Jesus.—The saints are always troubled lest sin should be lying hidden in their hearts.—The fact that all questioned, shows that they did not suspect Judas; they were deserved in him.—It was not with Judas as Terence says, erubuit, salvus est.—Where shame is, there is not yet full perdition.—The earthly supper a type and pledge of the heavenly.—Heaven an eternal feast of love and friendship.—Christ sang with his disciples: thus He sanctified Church psalmody.
F. W. Krummacher (The Suffering Saviour):—The institution of the Lord’s Supper.—The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.—Judas Iscariot the New Testament Achitophel.—Ahlfeld: The Lord’s Supper the means of grace, through which Jesus makes His abode in His Church and in us. Maunday Thursday.—Harless: The true guests at the Lord’s table.—Kern: The holy Supper a Supper of the New Covenant.—A. Knapp: The Lord’s Supper the holy of holies in the new dispensation.
[Quesnel:—(on Mat_26:11.) See here the extreme poverty of Christ, who had no house of His own on earth! He who would fain settle himself here, as in his native country, is not His disciple.—(Mat_26:20.) The Son of God, in this last assembly, which contains an abridgment, as it were, of the whole church, shows us the mixture of the good, the weak, and the wicked, who are all united in the participation of the same sacraments [? this depends upon the unsettled question of the presence of Judas at the institution of the Lord’s Supper].—(Mat_26:21.) Prudence and charity require that we should use the greatest sinners tenderly to the last; admonishing without discovering them.—When a heart is once hardened, it has no longer any ears to hearken to admonitions. It is the property of hardness of heart to make us, like Judas, deaf, obdurate, and insensible, without perceiving that we are so.—(Mat_26:26) Holy and adorable words! which contain the establishment of the Christian worship, the institution of the new law, the contract of the true covenant, the testament of a dying Father, a commandment of the greatest importance, the foundation of a true religion, the substitution of reality in the room of shadows, and the end of all types and figures.—(Mat_26:30) A communion-day is a day entirely set apart for thanksgiving, adoration, and hymns of joy, which are to be the beginning of the hymns and anthems of eternity.—Burkitt:—On Judas: 1. His character: a professor of religion, a preacher, an apostle, one of the twelve; 2. his crime: he betrayed Jesus, a man, his master, his maker; 3. the cause and occasion: covetousness, the root sin, [add 4. his sad repentance (the worldly sorrow leading to death, contrasted with the godly sorrow of Peter unto life); 5. his terrible end].—(Mat_26:23.) Eternal misery is much worse than non-entity. Better to have no being, than not to have a being in Christ.—The Lord’s Supper: 1. The author: Jesus took bread; 2. the time of the institution: the night before He was betrayed; 3. the sacramental elements: bread and wine; 4. the ministerial action: the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup; 5. the object: Do this in remembrance of Me, etc.; 6. Thanksgiving after communion.—Comp. similar reflections and suggestions in Matthew Henry, Thomas Scott, Ph. Doddridge, and other practical commentators.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
[29]Mat_26:20.—[Ἀνέκειτο. Dr. Lange renders ἀνάκειμαι and ἀνακλίνομαι: uniformly and correctly: sich zu Tischelagern, to recline at table, i.e., according to the oriental fashion of eating, upon a couch or triclinium, which was usually higher than the low table itself. Hence John could learn at the last supper on Jesus’ bosom, Joh_13:23. See Crit. Note 4 on p. 150, and the Commentators on Luk_7:36.—P. S.]
[30]Mat_26:20.—Lachmann adds μαθητῶν according to A., L., M., etc [Also Cod. Sinait.]
[31]Mat_26:22.—[The text. rec. reads: ἕκαστος αὐτῶν. But Dr. Lange, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and the majority of witnesses prefers: εἷς ἕκαστος, each one, without αὐτῶν.—P. S.]
[32]Mat_26:24—[Καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ, εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. Lange: Für ihn wäre es besser, wenn er nicht geboren wäre, für jenen Menschen; it were better for him, if that man had not been born. The English Versions, except Wiclif’s, take the liberty of transposing the pronoun and the noun.—P. S.]
[33]Mat_26:26.—The art. τόν before ἄρτον is omitted by Lachmann [and Tregelles] on the authority of B., C., D., L., etc. Meyer favors the article, [so also Tischendorf and Alford], and explains the omission from liturgical usage. [Cod. Sinait. mits the article both before ἄρτον and before ποτήριον, Mat_26:27. It is not found in the parallel texts: Mar_14:22; Luk_22:19.—P. S.]
[34]Mat_26:26.—For εὐλογήσας: B., D., Z., and a number of later MSS., Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford]. For εὐχαριστήσας: Scholz with A., E, F., H., etc, consequently a larger number of witnesses. Mark has the former reading, Luke and also Paul, 1Co_11:24, the latter, and it is supposed that the liturgical expression of the Church influenced our text. [Cod. Sinait. reads εὐλογήσας, like B., D., L., Z., the Syriac, and Vulgate Versions (benedixit). Comp. Mar_14:22—P. S.]
[35]Mat_26:26.—[Dr. Lange translates: sprach den Segen, i.e., pronounced the blessing, or gave thanks, blessed, without it, which is omitted in the Greek, as in the following clauses and in the next verse.—P. S.]
[36]Mat_26:27.—The article before cup is omitted by the best critical authorities. Lachmann has it according to A., D., and Recepta. Meyer thinks that it was inserted from liturgical language. [Cod. Sinait. and the editions of Tischendorf and Alford, omit τό. The genius both of the English and German languages, however, requires here the article, definite or indefinite, while it may be omitted in both before bread.—P. S.]
[37]Mat_26:28.—καινῆς is omitted by B., L., Z., etc., [Cod. Sinait.], and given up by Tischendorf and Meyer (who regard it as an insertion from the ancient liturgies); while A., D., etc., Irenæus, and Cyprian favor it, and Lachmann retains it. [So also Alford, but in brackets.] The adjective is omitted also in Mark, Codd. B., C., D. The Pauline tradition which had it, prevailed, the more so as it corresponds with the nature of the case.
[38]Mat_26:28.—[Dr. Lange translates διαθήκη Bund, covenant. So also Castalio, Beza, Doddridge, Campbell, Norton, de Wette, Ewald (mein Bundesblut), Meyer, Crosby, Conant. The new covenant refers by contrast to the old covenant, that of Moses, which was consecrated by the blood of calves and goats. See the Exeg. Notes. The English Version renders διαθήκη by testament in thirteen passages, and by covenant in nineteen passages of the N. T.—P. S.]
[39]Mat_26:29.—[In Greek: οὐ μή, which Dr. Lange translates more emphatically: mit nichten, by no means, in no wise; Meyer: gewisslich nicht. The Bishops’ Bible translates the double negation here: in no wise; in Mat_26:35 still stronger: by no manner of means. Other Engl. and Germ. Verss, (also Lange in Mat_26:35) overlook the emphasis.—P. S.]
[40][Augustine: “Peter and Judas received of the same bread, but Peter to life, Judas to death.”—P. S.]
[41][Calvin is not positive on this point, Compare his remarks on Luk_22:21 (in Tholuck’s edition of Calvin’s Com. on the Harmony of the Gospels, i. p. 307): “Ideo apud Lucam poscitur adversaria particula, veruntamen ecce manus prodentis me mecum est in mensa. Etsi autem peracta demum cœna hoc Christi dictum Lucas subiicit, Non Potest tamen inde certa colligi temporis series, quam scimus Sæpe ab Evangelistis negligi. Probabile tamen esse non nego, Judam affuisse, quum corporis et sanguinis sui symbola Christus suis distribueret.”—P. S.]
[42][Hilary: “The passover was concluded … without Judas, for he was unworthy of the communion of eternal sacraments.”—P. S.]
[43][Similarly Alford: “The form of expression is important, not being οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος, or οὗτος ὁ οἶνος, but τοῦ. το, in both cases, or τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον, not the bread or wine itself, but the thing itself in each case; precluding ιἄ idea of a substantial change.”—P. S.]
[44][The Edinb. trsl. reads: “Meyer thinks this excludes the fourth cup;” and thus attributes to him the very opposite opinion. Comp. note on Mat_26:27, and Meyer’s Com. on Matt. p. 500 (4th ed.): “ὅτι οὐ μὴ πίω dass ich Gewisslich nicht trinken werde Diess setzt...voraus, dass es der letzte [the fourth], nicht der vorletzte [the third] Becher des Mahles war, welchen er V. 27 f. gegeben hatte....Es war der Schluss becher, bei dessen Genuss its weites Theil des Hallel gesungen wurde”—P. S.]
[45][Comp. also the able work of Dr. I. W. Nevin: The Mystical Presence, Philadelphia, 1846 (a defence of the Calvinistic theory with some modification), together with Dr. Ch. Hodge’s review of it in the Princeton Review for 1848 (from the Zwinglian stand-point), and Dr. Nevin’s defence In the Mercersburg Review for 1849.—P. S.]
[46][In the third edition of his Commentary, to which Dr. Lange always refers. In the fourth edition of 1858 it is p. 499.—P. S.]
[47][The Edinb. trsl. omits the greater part of the original, sub No. 4.—P. S.]
[48][See his Lehre vom Abendmahle, Leipzig, 1851, p. 472. —P. S.]
[49][In an elaborate History of the Dogma of the Lord’s Supper, in 2 vols., Frankf. 1845–’46, also in his Dogmatics, and in a review of Dr. Nevin’s Mystical Presence in Ullmann’s Studien und Kritiken, but I do not remember for which year, probably 1850.—P. S.]
[50][Lutherische Dogmatik vol. i. Leipzig, 1861, p. 618 sqq.—P. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv17–20 Thursday of Passion Week.
Thursday of Passion Week.
§ 121. — TWO DISCIPLES SENT TO PREPARE THE PASSOVER, Mat_26:17-19.
Read full note →
17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread — This was Thursday, the day before the crucifixion day, the day upon whose evening our Saviour ate the paschal lamb. We have remarked before that, accurately speaking, the passover and the feast of unleavened bread were distinct; the latter being during the seven days after the passover, and commencing the next day after the passover supper. But inasmuch as the leavened bread was, by way of preparation, banished from their houses on this day, before the passover supper, it was properly called the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, as it is called here. The feast of unleavened bread was thus enjoined by Moses, Exo_12:18 : “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall eat unleavened bread until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv17, 18, 20 17. the first day of the feast of unleavened…
17. the first day of the feast of unleavened bread] This was the 14th of Nisan, which commenced after sunset on the 13th; it was also called the preparation (paraskeué) of the passover. The feast of unleavened bread followed the passover, and lasted seven days, from the 15th to the 21st of Nisan. Hence the two feasts are sometimes included in the term “passover,” sometimes in that of “unleavened bread.” On the evening of 13th of Nisan every head of the family carefully searched for and collected by the light of a candle all the leaven, which was kept and destroyed before midday on the 14th. The offering of the lamb took place on the 14th at the evening sacrifice, which on this day commenced at 1.30; or if the preparation fell on a Friday, at 12.30. The paschal meal was celebrated after sunset on the 14th, i. e. strictly on the 15th of Nisan.
The events of the Passover are full of difficulty for the harmonist. It is however almost certain that the “Last Supper” was not the paschal meal, but was partaken of on the 14th, that is after sunset on the 13th of Nisan. It is quite certain, from Joh_18:28, that Jesus was crucified on the preparation, and although the synoptic narratives seem at first sight to disagree with this, it is probably only the want of a complete knowledge of the facts that creates the apparent discrepancy.
Read full note →
The order of events in the “Passion” was as follows: when the 14th commenced, at sunset, Jesus sent two disciples to prepare the feast for that evening, instead of for the following evening. A sign of hastening on the meal may be detected in the words “my time is at hand,” Mat_26:18, cp. Luk_22:15, “with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” The supper follows, which bears a paschal character, and follows the paschal ceremonial. Early in the morning of the 14th of Nisan the irregular sitting of the Sanhedrin took place. Then followed the formal sitting of the Sanhedrin, and the trial before Pilate, the “remission” to Herod, and, finally, the Crucifixion. This view meets the typical requirements of our Lord’s death completely. During the very hours when our Great High Priest was offering Himself as a sacrifice for our sins upon the cross, the Jewish people were engaged in slaying thousands of lambs in view of the paschal feast about to commence.
17–19. Preparations for the Last Supper
Mar_14:12-16; Luk_22:7-13
Nisan 13—from the sunset of Wednesday to the sunset of Thursday—Jesus seems to have passed in retirement; no events are recorded.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv17–20 (17) The first day of the feast of unleavened…
(17) The first day of the feast of unleavened bread.—St. Mark and St. Luke, as writing for Gentile readers, add the explanation that it was then that the Passover was to be slain. The precision with which all the first three Gospels emphasise the fact leaves no room for doubt that they looked on the Last Supper as the celebration of the actual Paschal Feast. St. John’s narrative, as has been said, leaves primâ facie a different impression.
Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?—Our Lord had passed each night since His entry at Bethany (probably in the house of Lazarus or Simon the leper), or in the garden of Gethsemane (Joh_18:1), but the Paschal lamb was to be slain and eaten in Jerusalem, and therefore special preparations were needed. Once before, and probably once only (Joh_2:13), had the disciples kept that feast with Him in the Holy City. Were they expecting, as they asked the question, that this feast was to be the chosen and, as it might well seem, appropriate time for the victorious manifestation of the Kingdom? We learn from St. Luke (Luk_22:7) that the two who were sent were Peter and John.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv17–20 Vers. 17-19. Preparation for the Paschal Supper. (Mar_14:12-16 Luk_22:7-13)
Vers. 17-19. Preparation for the Paschal Supper. (Mar_14:12-16 Luk_22:7-13)
The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; literally, on the first day of Unleavened Bread. We have arrived at the Thursday in the Holy Week, Nisan 13. Wednesday had been spent in retirement at Bethany, and no acts or sayings of Christ on that day are recorded. The festival actually began at sunset of the 14th which was called the day of preparation, because the lambs for the feast were slain in the afternoon of that day, preparatory to their being eaten before the morning of the 15th. Domestic preparation, involving the removal of all leaven from houses and the use of unleavened bread, began on the 13th; hence this was considered at this era "the first day of the Unleavened." Came to Jesus. As the Master of the family, who had the ordering of all the details of the Paschal celebration. They did not know the mind of Jesus on the subject, and desired his directions as in former years. Bethany was considered as Jerusalem for the purposes of the solemn meal, and the apostles thought that preparation was to be made at some house in that village. Prepare for thee to eat the Passover. The preparations were numerous: a proper room had to be found and swept and carefully cleansed from every particle of leaven; tables and couches had to be arranged, lights to be supplied, the lamb and all other necessaries (e.g. bread, wine, bitter herbs) provided. All these preparations took much time, so it was doubtless in the early morning that the disciples applied to our Lord. When they spoke of eating the Passover, they doubtless supposed that Christ meant in due course to celebrate the regular Paschal supper on the appointed day, i.e. on the evening of Friday. But his intentions were different from what they expected.
Read full note →
Vers. 17-30. The last Supper.
I THE PREPARATION.
1. The question of the disciples. It was now the first day of Unleavened Bread, "when the Passover must be killed"; (Luk_22:7 Mar_12:12) apparently, therefore, the fourteenth of Nisan, which seems to have been sometimes regarded as the beginning of the feast (see Josephus, "War of the Jews," 5:3. 1), though the fifteenth was legally the first day. It is possible, therefore, that the disciples may have come to our Lord at the beginning of the fourteenth, according to the Jewish reckoning, that is, after Sunset on the evening of the thirteenth; and thus the last Supper may have taken place a day before the legal time for the Passover. This is, perhaps, the most probable explanation of the apparent differences between St. John and the first three evangelists. The disciples asked the Lord where he would have the Passover prepared; they may have thought that he would keep it at Bethany, which was reckoned within the limits of Jerusalem for the purposes of the feast.
2. The Lord"s directions. He sent Peter and John to Jerusalem, giving them a sign whereby to find the house which he had chosen. They were to say to the good man of the house, "The Master saith, My time is at hand; I keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples." There was a mysterious power in the Lord"s message; the house was freely lent now, as the ass had been lent on the previous Sunday. There was a mysterious meaning in the words, "The Master saith, My time is at hand a meaning into which neither the disciples nor the householder could enter. Possibly, also, those words may imply that the Lord would keep the Passover before the appointed day, for his time was at hand the time when he must depart unto the Father.
II THE CONVERSATION AT THE SUPPER.
1. The Lord"s prophecy of the betrayal. "When the even was come, he sat down with the twelve." The Lord showed his holy lowliness; the twelve showed the workings of human pride even at that solemn hour. He washed the disciples" feet; but among them there was a strife, which of them should be accounted the greatest. Strange that these petty jealousies could have found room in apostles" hearts at such a time, in such a presence, after such warnings of the coming cross. Pride is one of our deadliest spiritual enemies; it has wrought sad evil in the Christian Church. We feel its power in our own hearts; we must crush it down if we would follow Christ. He taught them the blessedness of humility by word and by example; and then, as if to humble them still further, he told them the sad truth, "One of you shall betray me." It may be that the words were spoken, not only in sorrow, but also in love; it may be that even now the Lord would have called Judas to repentance, as he would have gathered the hard-hearted Jews unto himself, but they would not; and now Judas would not. He had yielded himself to the tempter; Satan had entered into him, (Luk_22:3) and there was hope no longer. The Lord"s holy soul was filled with the deepest sorrow; this awful treachery wounded his holy human heart with the acutest pangs; in the mysterious union of the human and Divine he knew its dreadful issues.
2. The questions of the disciples. The Lord"s sorrow communicated itself to the disciples; they were exceeding sorry. Sorrow has a humbling effect. The disciples felt now the influence of the Lord"s holy sorrow. They did not answer, like St. Peter afterwards, with passionate assertions of their faithfulness; but they whispered each one, even Peter, it seems, with trembling anxiety and self-distrust, "Lord, is it I?" Not, let us observe, "Is it this man or that man?" but, "Is it I?" The Lord did not answer at first with that distinct intimation which be gave shortly afterwards to St. John. (Joh_13:26) He said in general terms that the traitor was one of those nearest to him one who sat at the same meal, was using the same dish. Perhaps it was said in tenderness; he would even now, if it were possible, win that guilty soul to a sense of sin, to sorrow and repentance. Therefore he continued, in tones of deeper awfulness, to speak of the impending treachery. "The Son of man goeth;" so it was written in the Scriptures; so it was determined in the eternal purpose of God. But God"s foreknowledge is not inconsistent with the free will of man. The man does what must be, for it was foreordained; yet his will is not forced. The will of man is sacred, it is free; we feel the truth of this in our hearts, though we cannot see through the veil of awful mystery which bangs around. "Woe unto that man!" It is an utterance of sorrow, as in Mat_24:19, not an imprecation. "Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed!" It was through Judas; he had sold himself to Satan. Christ saw that evil figure behind him, prompting him to his hellish crime. He would have warned him even now; he tells him of the dreadful consequences of the sin which was in his thoughts. "Good were it for that man if he had not been born!" How it must have rent the loving heart of the most merciful Saviour to say those awful words! But the sternness was the sternness of love; he gave the traitor a glimpse of the tremendous future, to save him, if it were possible, in spite of himself; to save others from the like fearful doom. But Judas would not heed; he had not yet joined in the questions of the disciples. But now he too said, "Master, is it I?" Perhaps he felt forced to do so; to say nothing, while all the rest were asking the question, seemed to separate him from the others; it might look like an acknowledgment of guilt. Perhaps it was said in wantonness, or bitter scorn, or in that desperation which is the last stage in atrocious guilt. The Lord answered simply, "Thou hast said." It was an ordinary form of affirmation, yet it seems to refer the traitor to his own evil heart he would find the answer to his question there.
III THE INSTITUTION OF THE HOLY COMMUNION.
1. The bread. The Lord passes from the old covenant to the new, from the Passover to the Holy Communion. He did so "as they were eating," during the protracted ceremonies of the Paschal supper, while they were thinking of God"s great deliverance vouchsafed to their forefathers. He announced himself as the true Lamb of God, the one Sacrifice of which all the sacrifices of the Law were but figures. He took bread, and blessed. He gave thanks for the fruits of the earth, as was customary at the Passover. He blessed God the Father who giveth our daily bread, who giveth the Bread of life; he blessed bread and. wine, consecrating them by his words for this new sacred use. (comp. 1Co_10:16, "The cup of blessing which we bless He gave thanks (St. Luke and St. Paul), and by that thanksgiving made the Holy Communion to be a Eucharist a service of thanksgiving. He brake the bread, and himself "gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body." He had prepared them to receive these wonderful words. A year ago in the synagogue at Capernaum he had announced the great truth that the food of the Christian soul is the flesh and blood of Christ. Then he had promised that spiritual food ("The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world"); no w he gives it. "This," he said which I give you, is my body." He stood before them, his natural body yet unbroken, his flesh and blood not yet separated, as he gave them the holy food. He had taught them in that great sermon which had offended so many of his disciples, that "it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." He had told them, "He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." They would understand. that "the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith." They would understand as much as is given to us men to understand of that which must ever remain a sacred mystery. It was God incarnate who spake those holy words. His words, his actions, must have a deep, wide-reaching, mysterious meaning, passing our poor intellect. It is enough for us to know and believe that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord"s Supper.
2. The cup. Afterwards the Lord took the cup, the third probably of the four cups which, at that time, were drunk at the Paschal supper; that third cup was called "the cup of blessing". (comp. 1Co_10:16) Again he gave thanks, making it an Eucharist, and bade them all drink of it: "For this," he said, "is my blood of the new covenant." "The cup of blessing which we bless," says St. Paul, "is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" "To such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ." The old covenant made between God and his chosen people was ratified and inaugurated by the blood of sacrifices. "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". (Exo_24:8) It was necessary that the new covenant which the Lord had promised by his prophet (Jer_31:31) should be inaugurated with blood, for "with out shedding of blood is no remission." The Lord Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, being both Priest and Victim; his blood is the blood of sprinkling, which can purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. It is the blood of the new covenant the blood with which the covenant of grace was inaugurated. The partaking of that cup in repentance, faith, and love brings home the blessings of the new covenant to each believing soul. That blood was now being shed, the Lord said; the hour of his death was so near at hand that he regarded it as already present. He gave himself now in solemn purpose, in voluntary self-sacrifice, to die for men, as he gave his body and blood to be forever the spiritual food of the Christian soul. It is shed for many," about them, with reference to their needs; for all in a true sense, for "he died for all," he is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world; for many, in a deeper, holier sense many, not all, alas! wash their robes, and make them white in the blood of the Lamb. And it is shed for the remission of sins; for that blood purgeth the conscience, that blood cleanseth from all sin, that blood is accepted as a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Then with what grateful love, with what fervent hope, ought all Christian people to come to the Holy Eucharist! for the bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to be received become by his ordinance the means whereby the body and blood of Christ are received after a heavenly and spiritual manner by the faithful. And that body is the bread of life, and that blood is the blood of the new covenant, sealing the blessings of the covenant of grace to those who in faith partake of that holy /bed. Thus coming, may we experience in our inmost souls the truth of the well known words, "O my God, thou art true; O my soul, thou art happy" (see Hooker, "Eccl. Pol.," ch. 67, sec. 12).
3. The new wine of the kingdom. The Holy Eucharist looks not only backward, to the death of Christ, but forward also, to the marriage supper of the Lamb. For the Lord said that he would drink no more of that fruit of the vine, till that day when he shall drink it new with his chosen in the kingdom of his Father. Then the wine shall be new, not the new wine of this world, but a fountain of gladness and rapture such as hath never entered into human heart. The Lord shall share that gladness with his redeemed. He rejoiceth in their salvation; they rejoice in his most precious love. "Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.
4. The departure. The last Supper was over. They sang a hymn, the conclusion, probably, of the Hallel. The Lord and his disciples chanted the praise of God in those precious psalms, which, from the time of David onward, have ever been the Church"s treasury of devotion. They sang of that cup of salvation which, in a Christian sense, they had just received. They sang (and surely they must have felt that those sacred words had now a deeper meaning than ever) how "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." They sang of the Stone which the builders refused, soon to become the Headstone of the corner. They repeated the "Hosanna!" of Palm Sunday, and ended their high chant of praise with the solemn refrain, "O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever." As the Lord was with his disciples then, singing with them, so may he be with us, in our hearts, singing with us, when we chant the praises of God in the sanctuary. His presence, his inspiration, make praise and prayer acceptable. And now the last psalm was sung, and they went forth into the night. So should the Christian soul, strengthened and refreshed by the holy sacrament, go forth to meet the Lord.
LESSONS.
1. Hate pride; remember your sins; earnestly seek the grace of lowliness.
2. Say, "Lord, is it I?" Do not think of your neighbours" sins, but of your own.
3. Come often to the Holy Communion. Come; for it is the Lord"s commandment. Come; for it is the food of the soul.
4. Seek to realize the presence of the Lord in prayer and praise.
Vers. 17-30. The Lord"s Supper.
The institution of the Holy Supper was in connection with the eating of the Passover. The occasion was most appropriate and significant; for the Jewish feast had been instituted to foreshadow what the Christian festival was founded to commemorate. (see 1Co_5:6-8) The two sacraments of Christianity express all that was expressed in the entire circle of the ceremonial law, and more. All the washings are embodied in the sacrament of baptism; all the sacrifices and feasts in the Eucharist. Consider
I THE JEWISH PASSOVER.
1. The lamb typified Christ.
(1) It was a male of the first year, to set forth the excellence and the maturity of his humanity. He was "the Son of David," viz. that Son in comparison with whom the other sons of David are nowhere. He was "the Son of man," viz. in comparison with whom no other son of Adam may be named.
(2) It was "without blemish." He was in his birth immaculate, in his life and death perfectly righteous. In all points unique in purity, wisdom, and goodness.
(3) It was taken from the flock, to show that the humanity of Christ was to be real. It was accordingly no phantom. He was "bone of our bone.
2. Its sacrifice foreshadowed his Passion.
(1) "Taken from the flock" in order to be sacrificed, it became a vicarious victim. It became the substitute for those that were spared in consequence of its selection. So Christ, having identified himself with our race, was "taken" as our Substitute.
(2) In the original institution the blood of the lamb sacrificed, and sprinkled in faith upon the door posts and lintels of the houses, protected the inmates
from the sword of the destroyer. So is there life and salvation where by a sure faith the blood of the Lamb of God is sprinkled.
(3) The place of the sacrifice was ordained to be that which the Lord should choose. Jerusalem was that chosen place.
(4) The time was the fourteenth day of the month Abib. (cf. Exo_12:10:6-Joh Exo 18:28) "Between the two evenings," viz. the "ninth hour," when Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the Ghost.
(5) Even the direction respecting the preservation of the bones of the lamb from fracture had its prophetic meaning. (cf. Exo_12:46 Joh_19:36)
3. The feast anticipated his communion.
(1) The Egyptian had no right to the Passover. It was not for the idolater, but for the believer. So neither are the blessings of redemption in Christ designed for the obstinate sinner, but for the humble believer.
(2) It was to be eaten with unleavened bread. Leaven, being a kind of corruption, was an emblem of insincerity and falsehood. The faith which saves is not that of the hypocrite, but that of the true man. (see 1Co_5:8)
(3) It was to be eaten "with bitter herbs." The unleavened bread and bitter herbs together made the "bread of affliction." So if the sinner would commune with Christ, he must come with contrition and repentance.
II THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE.
1. The elements of the sacrament.
(1) Bread. This was to represent, signify, or be an emblem of the body of Christ.
(a) It was not his very body. "This is" equivalent to a common Hebrew idiom. (cf. Gen_40:12 Gen_41:26 Dan_7:23 Dan_8:21 1Co_10:4 Gal_4:24)
(b) Bread signifies all food which supports the life of the body. So is the body of Christ, discerned by faith, the sufficient and necessary food of the spirit.
(2) Wine. This was to represent his blood.
(a) "This is" cannot be literally taken. For in Luke (Luk_22:20) the words are, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," which it will not be contended is to be literally taken. The drinking of literal sacrificial blood was a custom amongst idolaters. But this was never practised in the service of Jehovah. (see Psa_16:4)
(b) Blood, viz. of the vegetable kind is chosen to set forth the life of the resurrection of Christ, which is that in which the true Christian has communion with him.
2. The treatment of the elements.
(1) The blessing. This was observed both in respect to the bread and the wine. This was no miracle of transubstantiation. It was, as explained in the evangelists, "giving thanks." The cup used was the "cup of blessing" of the Passover. Christ, as Man heading the table of the redeemed, gives God thanks. True believers will all say "Amen" to this benediction and thanksgiving.
(2) The breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine vividly call to remembrance the prominent features of the Passion. And forasmuch as Christ himself broke the bread and poured the wine, he evinced the voluntariness of his suffering for us. But that this breaking of the bread and pouring of the wine was not the actual suffering of Christ as the transubstantiationist must maintain, is evident, for Christ said," With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer". (see Luk_22:15)
(3) The participation. This set forth the believer"s communion with Christ, his assimilation to Christ, his incorporation with Christ, and his union in spirit with the Lord. He gave the elements to his "disciples mark, not as apostles, which they were, but as disciples, viz. that "all" disciples might claim this privilege. Bread to strengthen; wine to gladden. The cup is by Ignatius called agaph , as it was the symbol of love. By Paul it is called the "communion". (see 1Co_10:16)
(4) The description. "My blood of the covenant." It is the sign and seal of the "better promises" of the "new," or excellent, and "everlasting" covenant.
(5) The hymn. Praise at such time is to us most fitting. "Christ, removing the hymn from the close of the Passover to the close of the Lord"s Supper, plainly intimates that he intended that the ordinance should continue in his Church, that is, it had not its birth with the ceremonial law, so it should not die with it" (Henry).
(6) The departure, immediately afterwards, to the Mount of Olives, was also significant. For he was destined thence, after his actual Passion, to ascend into heaven to receive for us the blessing of the covenant.
3. The admonitory incident.
(1) "As they were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." As at its institution the Passover separated between Israel and Egypt in mercy and judgment, so now at its transformation into the Christian sacrament, mercy and judgment were to separate between the spiritual and sordid Israel. Judas was the type of his nation also when his wickedness recoiled upon him, as the wickedness of the Egyptians had recoiled upon them.
(2) The presence of treachery in the Church is an occasion of sorrow to the true believer. "They were exceeding sorrowful:" for the Lord, that his great love should be requited with villainy; for their college, that its credit and influence should be compromised.
(3) It is also an occasion for heart searching. "They began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord?" The search of true self-examination is particular and special. The evil concealed in us can be fully discovered to us only by the Lord. "He that dippeth," etc.. (ver. 23; cf. Psa_41:9) External communion with Christ in his ordinances is an aggravation of treachery to him.
(4) "The Son of man," etc. (ver. 24). It had been foretold that Messiah should suffer. (cf. Isa_53:3 Dan_9:26) But though Divine mercy brought infinite good out of that suffering, those who inflicted it were none the less criminal. How resolute is the devil of hypocrisy! "Judas answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? J.A.M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John A. Broadus 1886 · Public Domain On v17 Mat 26:17-35.
Mat 26:17-35.
The Passover Meal And The Lord’s Supper
Read full note →
Found also in Mar 14:12-31 Luk 22:7-39; compare Joh 13:1 to Joh 18:1.
Mark is here quite closely parallel to Matthew; Luke adds a good deal John introduces the feet-washing, and the great farewell discourse, which belong to this same evening, and present several not very distinct points of contact with the narrative of the other Gospels. Our Lord seems to have remained in seclusion at Bethany from Tuesday evening (beginning of the Jewish Wednesday) to Thursday afternoon; compare on Mat 26:1. Judas would naturally go the morning after the supper at Bethany to Jerusalem, and make his arrangement with the rulers. Jesus stays away from Jerusalem till his "hour is come." It was proper for every devout Jew to eat the passover, and Jesus was careful to "fulfil all righteousness" (see on "Mat 3:15"). So he returned to Jerusalem for this purpose, though foreseeing the consequences (Mat 26:31 f.; Joh 13:1); and he sent two disciples in advance to prepare for the feast. This section may be divided into Mat 26:17-19, Mat 26:20-25, Mat 26:26-30, Mat 26:31-35.
I. Mat 26:17-19. The Disciples Prepare For The Passover Meal
Mar 14:12-16 Luk 22:7-13. On the first day of unleavened bread. Mark adds, Rev. Ver., ’when they sacrificed the passover,’ which Matthew’s Jewish readers would not need to be told. The law required the Jews to begin to use unleavened bread with the fifteenth day of the month Nisan. (Lev 23:6 Num 28:17) But Exo 12:18 suggested that all leavened bread be removed in the afternoon of the fourteenth day; and the Talmud (Lightfoot on Mar 14:12) says they removed it at noon. Accordingly Josephus in one place puts the beginning of the feast on the fifteenth ("Ant.," 3, 10, 53), and in another place on the fourteenth ("War," 5, 3, 1), and elsewhere says ("Ant.," 2, 15,1), "We keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread." With all this Mark agrees, and Luke is equivalent. In Exo 12:6 Num 9:3, they were directed to kill the lamb ’between the two evenings’ (Rev. Ver. margin), which the Jews of our Lord’s time understood to mean the middle of the afternoon, beginning at 3 P. M.; and they would continue killing lambs till the going down of the sun. (Deu 16:6) Josephus ("War," 6, 9, 3) says, "they slay the sacrifice from the ninth hour to the eleventh," from 3 to 5 P. M., and mentions the number of lambs slain on some occasion as 256,500. After the fifteenth day began, i. e., after sunset, they ate the paschal lamb. (Exo 12:8 Num 33:3) So the disciples probably went to the city about noon, to procure a room, take a lamb to the temple court and slay it, roast the flesh with bitter herbs, (Exo 12:8 f.)and provide bread and wine for the meal. The disciples came to Jesus, at Bethany. Prepare, or, make ready same Greek word as in v. 19. It may very well be that the lamb had been procured the day before, as was common; what they inquire about is the place. And he said, Go into the city. Mark says (Rev. Ver.) ’he sendeth two of his disciples and saith unto them, Go into the city’; and Luke, ’he sent Peter and John,’ who from this time are frequently mentioned together (Joh 13:24, Joh 18:15 f.; Joh 20:2 ff.; Acts, Joh 3:1; Joh 8:14, etc.); even as they and James were the only disciples accompanying the Master on several occasions. To such a man. This may mean that Jesus indicated who the man was, but Matthew does not give the name. Some however suppose that Jesus gave no name because he did not wish Judas to learn the place in advance, being aware of his treacherous designs, and desiring to remain uninterrupted till a later hour. With this agrees the fact that Mark and Luke tell how they were to find the person in question. In the city they will meet a man bearing a pitcher of water, and following him home they must deliver a message to the goodman of the house, substantially the same as that recorded by Matthew. All this would seem to involve supernatural knowledge, like the prophetic direction in 1Sa 10:1-8; but some think that Jesus had arranged with the householder for such signs. The Master saith, shows that this man would prove to be a disciple of Jesus, if not in the full sense, yet so far that he would gladly render him this service; compare Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and compare above on Mat 21:3. ’Master’ is, didaskalos’teacher,’ see on "Mat 8:19". My time,kairos, set time, special time, season, see on "Mat 11:25", meaning here the time of his death; compare the use of ’hour’ in Joh 12:23, Joh 17:1, and often. I will keep, or, I keep, the present tense[1] indicating an intention about to be carried out. At thy house, has in the Greek an emphatic position. The householders at Jerusalem were accustomed to receive into their houses without charge such family groups as wished to eat the paschal lamb (Edersheim and others); but they would of course exercise some choice. In Mark our Lord adds, "And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished and ready"; the householder would show respect by going himself, the room would be large, and in all respects prepared for use. It is still common in Oriental houses to have the principal rooms in the second story. (compare Act 1:13) And they made ready the passover, as described above; and at even Jesus came and ate it. (Mat 26:20.) So also Mark and Luke.
[1] This is one of the cases as to which it used to be said that in New Testament Greek, the present tense is used for the future. Compare Mat 26:2, Mat 26:45; Joh 10:32 to Joh 11:47. Accordingly, Tyndale and followers here render ’I will keep!’ But no one now talks about present for future. See Winer and Buttmann.
Thus Matthew, Mark, and Luke distinctly state that Jesus ate the paschal meal, and that would place his death at 3 P. M. on the fifteenth of Nisan. But there are several passages in John which at first seem inconsistent with the idea that he ate the paschal meal. If John really meant that he did not, then there is a hopeless conflict between him and the other three Evangelists, one side or the other being in error; unless, indeed, we adopt the highly artificial supposition of some writers that Matt., Mark, and Luke refer to an anticipation of the paschal meal twenty-four hours in advance. But this we cannot do; for besides the difficulty of supposing that the Saviour would thus violate the law in the act of observing it, who can believe that the temple authorities would have knowingly allowed the slaying of the paschal lamb before the time, or that Peter and John would have slain it clandestinely? A number of recent writers contend or assume that John’s language does forbid our believing that Jesus ate the passover. Most of these writers, it should be observed, are quite willing to recognize errors in the Scriptures as to matters of fact; and some of them are anxious to point out such errors upon every possible occasion. Others of us are very unwilling to admit the existence of such errors, and earnestly strive to remove the appearance of contradiction in the sacred writers, whenever it can be fairly done. Neither side in such an ease can claim superior exemption from the influence of theoretical prepossessions; and it becomes every writer to state his views with due respect for those who differ with him.
There are five passages of the Fourth Gospel which have been regarded as showing that Jesus did not eat the passover. (Compare especially Robinson’s "Harm.," Clark’s "Harm.," Andrews, Milligan.) Do these passages really thus teach? (1) Joh 13:1, Rev. Ver., "Before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew," etc. This is held to show that the supper described in John 13 occurred before the paschal supper, and consequently twenty-four hours before it. But observe that Joh 13:2 is not ’supper being ended,’ but (in the correct text) ’during supper.’ Then may we not understand that ’before the feast’ refers to the feet-washing, which occurred after they had reclined for supper, but before they actually partook of the feast? Is not this more probable than that Matt., Mark, and Luke are in downright error? (2) Joh 13:27, "That thou doest, do quickly." It is added that some thought this meant, "Buy what things we have need of for the feast," Rev. Ver. But if the paschal feast was twenty-four hours off, what possible propriety would there have been in hastening out that night to make purchases for it? It is much easier to suppose that they thought of hurried purchases to complete the feast then in progress. But the new difficulty arises that upon this supposition there had already begun the first day of the paschal festival, and this being a holy day, purchases would not have been lawful. Now the Mishna, "Sabbath," 23, 2, says that if the day before the passover be a Sabbath, one may buy a lamb, even leaving his garment in pledge, and then settle after the feast. From this Edersheim and others fairly argue that if a purchase of something needed for the feast could be made even on the Sabbath, much more on the first day of a feast when not a Sabbath. (3) Joh 18:28, Rev. Ver., "They themselves entered not into the Praetorium (palace), that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover." This seems at the first glance distinctly to show that the paschal supper was yet to come when our Lord was before Pilate. But in fact the passage furnishes an argument in the other direction. If this had been the morning before the paschal meal, then the defilement incurred by entering a Gentile’s dwelling could have been removed at sunset by washing with water (see Lev 15:5-11, Lev 15:16-18, Lev 22:5-7) Edersheim: "In fact it is distinctly laid down (Jerus. Talmud Pes. 92 b.) that the ’bathed of the day,’ that is, he who had been impure for the day and had bathed in the evening, did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is related (Pes. 36 b.), when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem ’immersed,’ and ate the Paschal Lamb." It is not necessary to explain with certainty the meaning of the phrase ’eat the passover’ as here employed. It may be a general expression for observing the paschal festival, or may refer to the Chagigah, or feast-offering which was offered on the morning of the first paschal day; and various other suggested meanings are possible. If the passover festival had already commenced, the rulers would wish not to be cut off from its privileges during the day upon which they had entered. At any rate this passage as a whole agrees best with the idea that the paschal meal was not still in the future. (4) Joh 19:14, "Now it was the Preparation of the passover." This was the day of the crucifixion, and many argue that the day of the crucifixion was not on the first day of the paschal festival, as Matt., Mark, and Luke represent, but on the day of preparation for the passover. But "the Preparation" was already an established phrase for "the day before the Sabbath," as distinctly shown by Mar 15:42, Mat 27:62; and the Greek term here employed has from an early period been the regular word for Friday in the whole Greek speaking world. This passage of John may therefore easily mean that it was the Sabbath eve, or Friday, of the passover week; and observe that John himself so uses the term Preparation in Joh 19:31, Joh 19:42. (5) Joh 19:31, "For that Sabbath day was a high day," has been supposed to mean that the first day of the passover festival on that occasion coincided with the weekly Sabbath. But the weekly Sabbath during the great annual festival would have been without that a notable occasion, "a great day."
It thus appears that no one of these five passages at all requires us to understand that Jesus did not eat the paschal supper on the night before his crucifixion, and the second and third distinctly tend in the contrary direction. Grant that the first impression produced by reading these passages in John would be as claimed; grant that some of the explanations above given are not obvious nor certainly correct,—yet how can one say that the total result is to furnish sufficient ground for accusing the other three Gospels of uniting in a definite error? Among the writers who hold that John’s expressions do not contradict the express statements of the other Gospels are Robinson, Andrews, Wieseler, Tholuck, Ebrard, Clark, Milligan, Plumptre, McClellan, Schaff, Morison, Edersheim. On the other side are Neander, Ewald, Bleek, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Pressense, Godet, Farrar, Wescott, Weiss.
II. Mat 26:20-25. While Eating The Passover, Jesus Declares That One Of The Twelve Will Deliver Him Up
Mar 14:18-21 Luk 22:21-23 Joh 13:21-30.
When the even was come, after sunset (see on "Mat 26:17"); no particular hour of the evening was fixed by the law or by custom. He sat down, etc., Rev. Ver, he was sitting at meat, reclining, as in Mat 26:7, see on "Mat 8:11". It was originally directed (Exo 12:15) that the passover should be eaten in a standing posture, "with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste," representing the circumstances of its first observance. This posture and haste had been disused, probably because the circumstances no longer seemed to call for it. The Talmud of Jerusalem says, "It is the manner of servants to eat standing, but now let them (the Israelites) eat reclining, that they may be known to have passed out of slavery into liberty." We have to conclude that the matters of posture and haste really were of no importance, and so Jesus conformed to custom. Reclining at table at all was an indolent practice, but it was not necessarily wrong; and in this, as in dress and various other matters, Jesus was content to follow custom. With the twelve disciples. ’Disciples’ was omitted by some early and many later documents, probably by way of assimilation to Mar 14:17; the word is implied if not expressed. Twelve made a party of about the usual size. Josephus says ("War " 6, 9, 3), that the company partaking of a paschal lamb consisted of not less than ten men, and sometimes reached twenty. It was necessary to have a good many, in order to consume the entire lamb. (Exo 12:4, Exo 12:43-46) On the several steps in the observance of the Passover, as described in the Rabbinical writings, see Lightfoot, Meyer, and a highly interesting account in Edersheim. It is not certain how far this round of observances already existed in the time of Christ. Nor do they throw any clear light on our Lord’s appointment of bread and wine. Though instituted on the occasion of the paschal meal, and out of its materials, the Christian ceremony is in no way dependent, for its meaning, importance, or proper observance, upon the Jewish ceremony.—Luke reports, (Luk 22:14-16) our Lord’s expressions of gratification in eating the passover with his disciples. He also states, (Luk 22:23-30, R. V.) that "there arose a contention among them, which of them is accounted to be greatest," as above in Mat 18:1 Mar 9:34. Our Lord rebukes this spirit, in terms similar, first (Luk 22:23-27) to that uttered after the ambitious request of James and John, Mat 20:25-27 Mar 10:42-44, and secondly, (Luk 22:30) to that recorded by Matt. alone in Mat 19:28. It is thus possible that Luke, who has no record of those sayings, gives here what was spoken then. But it is much more likely that on a new occasion Jesus rebukes the same fault in similar terms, as we have often found him doing (compare on Mat 21:12). The contention as to who was greatest might have been suggested in this case by questions of precedence at table, about which Orientals and even Europeans show an outspoken solicitude which in America we can hardly imagine. The Mishna ("Sabbath " 23, 2) speaks of drawing lots to determine the place at table, even among the members of a family. Luke passes at once from the opening paschal cup to tell of our Lord’s institution of the memorial bread and wine; then narrates the allusion to Judas, the contention among the disciples, and so arrives at the warning to Peter. This contention also suggests a very natural occasion for the feet-washing of Joh 13:1-17, as another object-lesson in humility, answering exactly to that of Mat 18:2. As they were eating (Mat 26:21 and Mat 26:26), two things occurred: Jesus (a) foretold that one of them would deliver him up, and (b) established the ordinance of bread and wine.
Mat 26:21 f. The strong expression betray me, seems to be necessary to our feeling throughout this passage (Mat 26:21, Mat 26:23-24), partly because we are accustomed to it; yet the Greek really means simply deliver me up, precisely as in Rev. Ver., Mat 26:2, Mat 26:15 f. The Evangelists speak with compassionate moderation of Judas, compare on Mat 17:22. Began is not mere Hebrew circumstantiality (compare on Mat 11:20), but suggests that the process of inquiry was continued by one after another. Lord, is it I? with an interrogative particle in the Greek which strongly implies expectation of a negative answer, as in Mat 7:9 f.; Mat 9:15, Mat 11:23 R. V. The nearest English equivalent would be, ’It is not I, Is it?’ Jerome : "The eleven, believing the Master more than themselves, and fearing their own weakness, sadly ask about a sin of which they had no consciousness." The answer in Mat 11:23, He that dippeth, or dipped (Rev. Ver.), his hand with me in the dish (so also Mark), might seem only a general description, as doubtless all the Twelve did so. Knives and forks were not used in eating and any person would help himself from the dish before him. Our Lord might appear here not to be identifying Judas, but merely showing the enormity of his offence: the man that ate from the same dish with me will deliver me up. (Compare Psa 41:9 Joh 13:18) ’He that dipped’ does not necessarily mean before the time of speaking, but just as well before that of delivering up. So it does not materially differ from ’he that dippeth’ in Mar 14:20, Rev. Ver. It is thus possible to regard this saying as different from the identification described by John; see below on Mar 14:25. The Son of man, our Lord’s common designation of the Messiah, see on "Mat 8:20". Goeth, present tense because the going is certain and near at hand; so with is betrayed. As it is written of him, apparently not a reference to any particular prediction, but to the general tenor of Messianic prophecy, viz., that he should die. Some compare Isa 53:7-9 Dan 9:26; see also Luk 24:46. Luke has here, (Luk 22:22, Rev. Ver.) ’as it hath been determined,’ viz., in the divine purpose. Plump.: "It was appointed that the Christ should suffer, but that appointment did not make men less free agents, nor diminish the guilt of treachery or injustice. So, in like manner, as if taught by his Master, Peter speaks of the guilt of Judas in Act 1:16-18, and of that of the priests and Scribes in Act 4:27, Act 4:28. "Woe unto may express not only wrath, (Mat 23:13 f.) but at the same time compassion (Mat 24:19) By, or through, whom, the person through whose action a thing comes to pass. It does not seem proper to find here (with Winer) a hint that Judas was merely the instrument of other men. He appears to have acted of his own motion. Origen thinks it represents him as the tool of Satan. Betrayed, delivered up. (See on "Mat 26:21".) It had been good for that man, etc. This is a popular expression. If he had never lived, then, while losing all the good of life, he would have escaped the dreadful guilt he is incurring, and the horrors of future retribution. For him life was not "worth living."
Mat 26:25. Judas, see on "Mat 27:3". Answered. He had not been directly addressed, but he felt himself concerned in the pointed sayings just uttered. (Mat 26:21-24.) As all the others were asking, he probably thought it necessary to ask also, lest silence should betray him. Master, is it I? with the same interrogative particle as in Mat 27:22, implying the expectation of a negative answer. He does not say ’Lord,’ like the others, but literally, Rabbi, and so in Mat 26:49; but the difference must not be pressed, for the disciples often addressed Jesus as Rabbi. (Compare on Mat 8:19) Thou hast said, i. e., hast said what is true. This was a common form of affirmative reply, found also in Mat 26:64, and occurring in the Talmud.
It here solemnly repels the suggestion of a negative answer, and treats his question as a virtual confession (Lutter.) This is the moment represented in Leonardo Da Vinci’s fresco of the "Last Supper," of which everybody has seen some engraving; Judas has just received the affirmative answer. Of course we must not think of the guests as sitting, according to that picture, for we know that they reclined. See an ingenious representation of the probable scene, with a plan of the table, in Edersheim., II, 494. This question of Judas and the answer in Matt. (not found in Mark or Luke) is recorded in terms so general as not to show whether the answer was also known to others. John has a full account of apparently the same matter, differing in form, but not in substance, from Matthew’s summary statement. He says the disciples were at a loss whom Jesus was speaking about, and that Peter beckoned to John, who was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, to inquire who it was. Then Jesus replied, apparently in a low tone, that it was he for whom he would dip a sop and give it to him; and presently he dipped, and gave it to Judas, who immediately went out into the night. In connection with this sign to John, our Lord may have given an oral answer to the question just asked by Judas, as in Matt.; or the facts may be harmonized in other ways.
According to the order in Matthew and Mark, Judas went out before the memorial of bread and wine was instituted. Luke seems to place things otherwise; but we have seen that he appears to relate the institution of the bread and wine immediately after mentioning the first paschal cup, (Luk 22:17-20) and then to return to speak of the false disciple; if so, Luke does not teach that Judas was present at the institution, and partook of the loaf and the cup. The case is not certain, but this is the most natural way of combining the accounts. So there is no propriety in understanding that here a flagrantly wicked person was knowingly admitted to take part in the ordinance.
III. Mat 26:26-30. The Lord’s Supper
Mar 14:23-26 Luk 22:19-20, 1Co 11:23-25.
John gives no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Paul says, "I have received of the Lord," and judging from his similar expressions elsewhere, we understand him to mean by direct revelation, which would make this an independent account. It resembles that of his companion Luke,[1] and Matt. and Mark form another pair. The place is an upper room in the house of some friend (Mat 26:18), and the time apparently some hours after sunset, on the evening before the crucifixion. As they were eating, compare Mat 26:21; this is the second thing described as occurring in the course of the meal; so Mar 14:18, Mar 14:22. Jesus took bread, or a loaf (Rev. Ver. margin); the common Greek text has an article, but wrongly. The word is singular in all four accounts. It is sometimes employed collectively for bread in general, (Mat 4:4, Mat 6:11, Mat 15:2, Mat 15:16) but more commonly for a loaf or cake of bread (Mat 4:3, Mat 12:4, Mat 14:17, Mat 14:19, Mat 15:33 ff.; Mat 16:5-11), and probably so here. This is more likely to have been what we should call a cake than a loaf (see Smith’s "Dict.," Bread); such fiat cakes the Jews at Jerusalem now eat at the passover. It was unleavened, of course, as required by the law at the passover; (Exo 12:15, Exo 13:3, Exo 13:7 Deu 16:3) but our Lord makes no reference to this, and it is not wise to insist on using only unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper. And blessed, naturally means blessed the loaf, that being the object of the preceding and the two following verbs. Luke and Paul, however, have ’gave thanks’ viz., to God, as below, Mar 14:27;[2] and so some would here understand it to mean blessed God. But in Luk 9:16 it is distinctly ’he blessed them,’ viz., the loaves and fishes. This shows that the idea of blessing the loaf is not repugnant to Scripture, and as the connection naturally indicates that idea here, it should be preferred. Compare 1Co 10:16, "The cup of blessing which we bless." To bless a loaf is of course to invoke God’s blessing upon it, to ask that God will make it a means of blessing to those who partake. And brake it. Hence the observance of this ordinance came to be described as ’the breaking of bread.’ ( Act 2:42, Act 2:46, Act 20:7; compare 1Co 10:16) And gave, is according to the most probable Greek text[3] in the imperfect tense, which may mean that he went on giving, himself breaking a piece for each one, to be passed on to those out of his reach; while as to the cup it is aorist, since he simply gave the cup, and they passed it to each other. But the imperfect in such a case might only describe him as engaged in giving, and so would not substantially differ from the aorist. Take, eat. Mark has simply ’take’; Luke and Paul in Rev. Ver. have neither. This is my body. ’This’ is neuter, while the masculine would be needed to agree with ’bread’; it means, this object represents my body. Paul (1Co 11:24, Rev. Ver.) has ’This is my body, which is for you,’ where ’broken’ was early inserted, probably suggested by 1Co 10:16. The phrase current among us, "broken for you," is thus not a Scripture expression. ’That is for you’ means ’for your benefit;’ we should lovingly take what represents the body that is for us. Luke, Rev. Ver., has ’this is my body which is given for you,’ which amounts to the same thing. Weiss: "Not as a dark fatality were they to regard the death which he was now to meet, but as the way by which God would make them sharers in his greatest gift of salvation; and that gift was not to be for mere contemplative purposes: but for personal appropriation."
[1] If Indeed Westcott Hort are not right in holding that all in Luke, after ’body,’ being absent in the "Western" group of documents, is really an interpolation from Paul; and that Mat 26:17 f. is Luke’s account of cur Lord’s diving the cup, the order of the cup and the loaf being simply transposed. The question of text is very difficult, but the arguments for exclusion seem to grow upon one with renewed consideration. The omission of that portion of Luke would, however, take away nothing from the total information possessed by us, as it is all given in Paul.
[2] The reading ’gave thanks’ in Mat 26:26, mentioned in margin Com. Ver., is supported only by later documents; the earliest uncials, and nearly every one of the early versions, give ’blessed,’ and the change to the other is at once explained as an assimilation to v. and to Luke and Paul.
[3] The aorist (participle) here is read by à B D L Z, some important cursives, and the Memphitic, strong evidence. But we see at once how the imperfect might have been changed into correspondence with the aorist of Mat 26:27, and of the parallels as to the loaf in Mark and Luke, and we see no reason for the counter change; therefore the imperfect is probably correct.
Four different views as to the meaning of the phrase, ’this is my body,’ now prevail in the Christian world. Two of them take the expression literally, the others figuratively. (1) Transubstantiation, which represents the Roman Catholic view, mean that the bread ceases to be bread, and its substance is changed into the substance of the glorified body of Christ. This notion arose from combining the expression before us with Joh 6:48-58, the images there used being taken literally. In Justin Martyr," 1 Apol." 66, Irenaeus, 4, 18, 5, and even in Ignatius, Sin. 6, are expressions which do not in fact mean transubstantiation or read presence, but which tend in that direction, and doubtless helped to prepare the way for the doctrine subsequently developed. There is nothing of the sort in the "Didache." The question need not be here argued. The language seems evidently figurative, as in "I am the door," "I am the vine," "and the rock was Christ," "the field is the world," etc. We must remember that in Hebrew or Aramaic the copula ’is’ would not be expressed at all. (2) Consubstantiation, the term invented by Luther, and still used by some of his followers, means that with the unchanged substance of the bread is united the substance of the glorified body of Christ. Luther : "What is now the sacrament of the altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of the Lord Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are through Christ’s word commanded to eat and to drink... but how the body is in the bread, we know not." His followers have compared it to iron, with heat superadded, or more recently to iron magnetized. But the whole notion is obviously a mere makeshift of persons unwilling to give up the literal sense of ’is,’ and the mystical notion of Christ’s real presence. And how could the glorified body be invisibly dwelling in the bread, and the blood of that same glorified body be separately dwelling in the wine? They could be symbolized separately, but how could they exist separately? (Compare Meyer.) (3) The view of Calvin, now held by Presbyterians, Methodists, and many Episcopalians, appears to be that to the partaking of the bread is attached by divine appointment a special spiritual blessing, which is received by all who take the bread in faith, and which cannot be had without taking it. Hence, they sometimes feel aggrieved that other Christians who do not invite them to partake of the bread and wine are denying them the opportunity of a spiritual blessing, not to be otherwise enjoyed at that time. Some High Churchmen have receded from the Calvinian view, and maintain the "Real Presence " of Christ in the Sacrament, without undertaking to explain in what way or in what sense it exists. (4) The view of Zwingli, now almost universally held by Baptists, is that the bread is simply appointed as the symbol or memento, which we take in remembrance of the Saviour’s body, and that the natural effect of such a memento or symbol in vividly reminding of the Saviour, and kindling grateful affection toward him, is blessed to the devout participant. A memento of the departed may be a very simple thing, and yet deeply move the heart. But the blessing thus received is not supposed to be essentially different in kind from other spiritual blessings, or to be associated by mere divine appointment with this particular means of grace. Hence no spiritual loss is necessarily inflicted by failing to invite to this ceremony persons who have made a credible oral profession of faith, but have not yet submitted to the prerequisite ceremony.
Mat 26:27. Took the cup; a cup, is the correct text in Matthew and Mark, while it is ’the cup’ in Luke and Paul. There was a cup on the table for drinking wine according to the custom of the paschal meal; ’a cup’ does not say there were others. The paschal wine was usually mixed with a double quantity of water (Edersheim). Gave thanks. From the Greek word thus translated comes ’the Eucharist,’ i. e., ’the Thanksgiving,’ as a phrase for taking the bread and wine. It is used by Ignatius and the "Didache" to denote the taking of bread and wine in connection with an agape, or ’love feast’, (Jdg 1:12) just as Paul seems to use his phrase ’the Lord’s Supper.’ (1Co 11:20) But the connection with a regular meal in common is not made a duty by Paul, nor the connection with the passover by our Lord. What he directs is not to eat the passover, or to eat a supper, not to eat in the evening, or at a table, or in a reclining posture, but to eat bread and drink wine. Protestants unite in declaiming against the Romish practice of withholding the wine from the laity, because the Saviour enjoined both the eating and the drinking; and exactly what the Saviour enjoined we should do. So as to baptism, there is no command to baptize "in living water," as the "Didache" declares preferable, or in any particular place, time, circumstances, or manner; the thing enjoined is to baptize, (Mat 28:19) viz., in water, (Mat 3:11) and we should insist on nothing but water and the baptizing. (Compare on Mat 3:6) Drink ye all of it, It would seem unnecessary to say that this means all of you, and not all of it, as the Greek places beyond question; yet some have misunderstood. Mark records, not the command, but the performance, ’and they all drank of it.’ For, what follows being a reason for drinking. This is my blood, i. e., this wine represents my blood, like ’this is my body.’ Of the new covenant; the correct reading here,[1] and in Mark, does not contain "new." It was added by copyists from Luke and Paul. (Compare Jer 31:31 Heb 8:8)[2] Moses at Mount Sinai "took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people," and they promised to obey. Then he "took the blood "of oxen just slain," and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant." (Exo 24:3-8 compare Heb 9:19 f.) So the new covenant predicted by Jer 31:31-35 is about to he ratified by the Saviour’s own blood as the "blood of the covenant." (Compare Heb 10:29, Heb 13:20) For world-wide symbolism of blood as sealing a covenant, and its participation as denoting vital union, see Trumbull: "The Blood Covenant," especially p. 271-286. Which is shed, present tense (in Mark also), expressing what is near and certain, on the point of taking place, like ’is delivered,’ Mat 26:2, Rev. Ver., and ’I keep,’ Mat 26:18, Rev. Ver. For many, so Mark. In Luke, if Mat 26:20 be genuine, it is ’for you.’ The ’many’ (compare Mat 20:28) is simply a general expression (probably derived from Isa 53:12, "he bare the sin of many," compare Isa 52:15), not necessarily indicating that some are omitted. In one sense, Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all", (1Ti 2:6) and to "taste death for every man" (Heb 2:9; compare 1Jn 2:2), making salvation objectively possible for all; in another sense, his atoning death definitely contemplated the salvation of the elect. Euthym. understands that whereas the blood of the sacrifices was shed for Jews only, i. e., few, this blood is shed for many, i. e., for Gentiles also. The preposition here rendered ’for’ means ’concerning’ (peri), and so ’for the benefit of,’ as in Joh 16:26, Joh 17:9, Joh 17:20 Heb 5:3, Heb 11:40. This preposition would not of itself suggest the idea of substitution. That idea would be readily, though not necessarily, suggested by Mar 14:24, hyper (which copyists easily changed by assimilation to Matthew and so the common Greek text of Mark has peri); and substitution is necessarily the meaning of anti, see on "Mat 20:28". For, or unto, remission of sins, in order that sins may be remitted. (Heb 9:22) This is the natural and most probable meaning of the preposition and its case, and is here entirely appropriate. (Compare on Mat 3:11) The bread and wine symbolize objectively the Saviour’s body and blood; our eating and drinking these symbolizes our personal union with Christ, and feeding our spiritual nature upon him; and our doing this together with others will, from the nature of the case, like any other action in common, promote Christian fellowship and unity where these already exist. Yet this last is a subordinate and incidental effect of the ceremony, and the presence of some in whose piety we lack confidence should not prevent our eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. The Lord’s Supper is often called "the Communion," through a misunderstanding of 1Co 10:16, where the word communion really means ’participation,’ as in Rev. Ver., margin. This wrong name for the ordinance has often proved very misleading. (See T. G. Jones, "The Great Misnomer," Nashville, Tenn.) Few have ever questioned that the apostles had all been baptized before this ordinance was established; some urge that being the baptism of John, this was not Christian baptism, and so they curiously infer that Christian baptism is not a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. But if John’s baptism was essentially distinct from Christian baptism, then how as to the baptism administered by Christ himself, (Joh 3:22, Joh 3:26) i. e., through his disciples, (Joh 4:1 f.) at the same time with John, and upon the same general teaching? (Mar 1:15) If the baptism performed by Christ was not Christian baptism, then what was it? (Compare on Mat 11:11)
[1] ’Covenant,’ without ’new’ in à B L Z, 33,102, Thebaic, Cyril; in Mark, à B C D L, Theb. and Memph., and k of the Old Latin. We see at once that the ’new’ might have been interpolated in Matt. and Mark from Luke and Paul (and compare Mat 26:29), while we see no reason why it should have been omitted if originally present. So the internal evidence supports this important group of documents. Notice the constant correspondence in this narrative between Matt. and Mark, and between Luke and Paul.
[2] The word diatheke signifies both covenant, an arrangement between (dia) two parties, and testament, an arrangement of things at intervals (dia), each in its proper place, a disposition of one’s affairs. The former is clearly the sense in most passages of the New Testament, but the two ideas are blended in Heb 9:15-20, because the new covenant was made in and through Christ’s death, and its benefits are, as it were, an inheritance from him. This sense of testament early took hold of the Christian mind. The Old Latin and Vulgate versions everywhere translate diatheke by testamentum, which in many passages is flagrantly inappropriate, (as Luk 1:72 Act 3:25 Heb 8:8 etc.) and nowhere needed except in Heb 9:16 f. The Old Covenant and the New Covenant thus gave names to the two great divisions of the Bible under the form of Old Testament and New Testament, which names cannot now be shaken off, though Covenant would be far more expressive. The domination of this idea made it hard for early English translations to break away from the rendering ’testament.’ Wyc. and Rheims of course follow the Vulgate. and give testament everywhere. Tyn., Cran., Gen., and K. J., all give testament in the four passages pertaining to the Lord’s Supper, in 1Co 3:6, 1Co 3:14, and throughout Heb 9:15-20 (Gen. has covenant in Mat 9:15 only); and all give covenant in Luk 1:72; Act 3:25, Act 7:8; Rom 9:4, Rom 11:27; Tyn. and Cran. have testament, but Gen. and K. J. covenant, in Gal 3:15, Gal 3:17; Eph 2:12; Heb 8:6, Heb 8:10; Heb 9:4; Heb 11:16, Heb 11:29; Heb 13:20; Tyn., Cram, and K. J., have testament, though Gen. has covenant, in Heb 7:22; Rev 11:19; Tyn., Cran., and Gem, testament, but K. J. covenant, in Heb 12:24. Coming out of all this confusion, Bib. Un., Noyes, Darby, Davidson, and Rev Vet. give covenant everywhere except in Heb 9:16 f., and all but Darby there explain in the margin that the Greek word means both; Rev. Ver. also puts testament in the margin of several other passages, including those relating to the Lord’s Supper, but the American Revisers rightly desired to omit this marginal alternative rendering.
Mat 26:29. I will not drink, should be, ’I shall not drink,’ as preferred by Amer. Revisers. This fruit of the vine. One of the prayers used at the Passover was (Lightfoot): "Blessed art thou, Jehovah our God, who hast created the fruit of the vine." Drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. He has gradually succeeded in making it plain to them that he will not establish a temporal kingdom, such as the Jews expected the Messiah to found. He is going to die, will soon leave them. But there will be a future kingdom of God, not a temporal but a spiritual kingdom, in which all things will be new. (Rev 21:5) In that new kingdom, founded on the New Covenant, he will meet them again, and drink with them a new kind of wine (Lutter.) This can hardly be understood otherwise than as a figure, even by those who expect a quasi-temporal reign of our Lord at Jerusalem after his second coming. (Compare Luk 22:16, Luk 22:30) In his present state of submission and suffering, our Lord does not speak of his own kingdom (as in Mat 16:28, Mat 25:31, Mat 25:34), but of his Father’s kingdom, in which he, as the Son, will rejoice with his friends. Yes, and all who shall have believed on him through the word of the apostles, will be with him there. (Joh 17:20, Joh 17:24) Matthew and Mark have not stated that the taking of the bread and wine was established by Jesus as a permanent institution. But Paul makes it clear by recording the words,"this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me," and adding, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shew the Lord’s death till he come." And we see the apostles practising it in Act 2:42, Act 20:7.
Mat 26:30. When they had sung a hymn, literally, if our idiom would allow, after hymning. The Greek word was properly a song of praise; and with this agrees the Sept. and New Testament use of the word, Act 16:25 Heb 2:12. We learn from the Talmud that the Jews were accustomed in connection with the paschal meal to sing Psalms 113-118, which Psalms they called "the great hallel" (praise); it was sung in two parts, Psalms 113, Psalms 114, and Psalms 115-118; the singing here was probably the second of these parts, or possibly Psalms 136, which the Jews now sing at the close of the passover meal. It is interesting to read these Psalms in this connection, remembering that Jesus himself took part in the singing. The psalms were written in the Hebrew form of poetry, viz., parallel clauses; to translate them into metre, which is the ordinary English form of poetry, is therefore appropriate. The term ’hymn’ must not be here taken in our common sense as differing from a psalm, nor is there any radical distinction between the two in Col 3:16 Eph 5:19. The music was a very simple chant; something probably quite similar may now be heard in an old fashioned (not "reformed") Jewish synagogue. They went out, viz., out of the house and the city. There was light in many dwellings, and movement in the streets, till long after midnight, at which hour the feast was required to end.—Before leaving the house, our Lord must be supposed to have given the great farewell discourse, and the prayer of John 14-17. It is not unlikely that John 14 was spoken before singing the latter part of the great hallel; then Jesus said, "Arise, let us go hence", (Joh 14:31) and after making arrangements for leaving the room, they sung the psalms, and he went on with John 15 and John 16, and the sweet and solemn prayer of John 17, after which we read, (Joh 18:1, Rev, Ver.) "When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kidron, where was a garden," and hither Judas came, with the soldiers and officials. This answers to the present sentence of Matt., and the parallels in Mark and Luke. Into the mount of Olives, see on "Mat 21:1". They would naturally go through the eastern gate north of the temple area, which is now called St. Stephen’s Gate; then down the. steep declivity into the valley, presently crossing the bed of "the brook Kidron," probably on a low bridge as now, and in not many steps further would reach the foot of the mountain. It was late, perhaps midnight or later; but the City gates were open all night during the great feasts, The paschal full moon shone upon them from exactly overhead, lighting up the bottom of the deep ravine.
IV. Mat 26:31-35. Our Lord Foretells The Dispersion Of The Twelve, And The Fall Of Peter
Mar 14:27-31 Luk 22:31-38 Joh 13:36-38. The passage occurs in Mark in the same order as here, but neither of them compels us to understand that the warning was given after leaving the room. That recorded by John is distinctly placed by him just after the commencement of the farewell address—for that address really begins with Joh 13:31. Luke seems also to put the warning before they left the house, (Luk 22:39) but his order in Luk 22:21-38 is, as we have seen, pretty clearly not chronological. It is more difficult to suppose the report in John to be out of its chronological position than those of Matt. and Mark. Clark’s "Harm." supposes two distinct warnings, that given in Luke and John occurring before they left the house, and that of Matt. and Mark after they went out. This is an improbable supposition, though presented by Greswell and Oosterzee, and by Riddle in Robinson’s "Harmony." Different as are the terms employed in Luke, we more naturally understand the warning as the same in all four Gospels, for its repetition during the same evening is highly improbable. It is therefore best to suppose, with most harmonists, that Matt. and Mark have here introduced the warning a little later than its chronological position, in order to avoid breaking the connection of Luk 22:20-29. It is likely that more was said than any of the Gospels give, or all of them together; as in the Sermon on the Mount, and often. All ye shall be offended because of (in) me, or shall find an occasion of stumbling, as in Mat 11:6, and see on "Mat 5:29". They will find in him some obstacle to continued devotion, and so will turn away and forsake him. This night He has during more than six months repeatedly foretold that he should be put to death in Jerusalem and rise again; see Mat 16:21, Mat 17:22 f.; Mat 20:18 f. At the close of his public teaching, he declared that he should at the passover be delivered up and crucified, Mat 26:2. Now he is perfectly definite as to the time. For it is written, stands on record, a common formula of reference to the Old Testament Scriptures, as in Mat 2:5, Mat 4:4, etc. Neither our Lord nor the Evangelist says that this was fulfilled in the present occurrence, and it might be enough to understand that our Lord merely borrows the language to indicate that he will be killed, and the disciples will leave him and disperse. Still, his introducing the quotation by ’for’ (so also Mar 14:27), indicates it as proving or as requiring that which he has just foretold; and it is entirely possible to understand Zec 13:7 as really pointing forward to this event. As to the form of the quotation Matthew and Mark follow the Hebrew, except in changing ’smite’ (singular) into ’I will smite’; while the Sept. (B and) is quite different, ’smite (plural) the shepherds and draw forth the sheep.’ This is a clear case of Matthew’s following the Hebrew rather than the Sept. (Compare on Mat 3:3) To take the passage as referring to the Messiah, corresponds to the idea of the Messiah as king, since kings were often described as shepherds. Then the flock will here be Israel, and the prediction is that Israel will be scattered, the first stage of which was the scattering of the Twelve when the Shepherd was smitten. It is, however, difficult to connect Zec 13:7, thus understood, with what there precedes. (Mat 26:1-6.) There is of course no absolute necessity for supposing such a connection. But the idea may be that in the coming time (Mat 26:2 ff.), idolatry and false prophets shall cease (which was true just before the coming of Christ), and yet there shall be great wickedness, and the Shepherd shall be smitten and Israel scattered, and only a third (Mat 26:8-9) finally purified and saved. Many writers insist that the idea of a shepherd here must be essentially like that of Zechariah 11, so that this is a bad shepherd, i. e., a bad king of Israel, whom God will remove. That is a possible interpretation, if we leave the New Testament out of view, but not at all a necessary one.
Mat 26:32. After I am risen again, or raised up. He has in every case, except Mat 26:2, promised that after being killed he would rise again I will go before you into Galilee, literally, will lead you forward, see on "Mat 21:31"; possibly with reference to the figure of a shepherd here just preceding. So Mark, and below, Mat 28:7. His chief appearance to them was to be in Galilee, (Mat 28:16) which had been the principal field of his ministry.
Mat 26:33-35. Though all... I never. The peculiar Greek construction (two indicative futures) implies the assumption that all will. Here is the beginning of that self-confidence which led step by step to Peter’s dreadful fall. And here is the distinct assumption that he loves the Master "more than these", (Joh 21:15) indeed more than any one whatsoever loved him. When bitter experience had chastened him, he made no more comparisons, but said only, "Thou knowest that I love thee." Verily I say unto thee, calling attention to something solemnly important (see on "Mat 5:18"). This night, as in Mat 26:31. Before the cock crow. Mark (Mar 14:30, Mar 14:72) has ’before the cock crow twice.’ The cock was apt to crow about midnight, and again a few hours later. The second crowing was the one more apt to be observed as indicating the approach of morning; and so this alone is mentioned by Matt., Luke, and John. Alexander: "The difference is the same as that between saying ’before the bell rings’ and ’before the second bell rings’ (for church or dinner), the reference in both expressions being to the last and most important signal, to which the first is only a preliminary." The minute recollection of this reference to the first cock-crowing also would be natural in Peter, and there are many things in the second Gospel to support the very early tradition that Mark wrote down what he heard Peter say. (Compare 1Pe 5:13) Some have made a difficulty of the fact that one passage of the Mishma forbids rearing fowls in Jerusalem, because the worms they scratch up would be Levitically defiling. But Wün. and Edersh. show that the cock-crow is repeatedly mentioned in the Talmud, and produce from it a story of a cock stoned to death in Jerusalem because it had killed a child. So the Rabbinical rule did not exist in the time of Christ, or else was not strictly observed. Palestine seems particularly well suited to fowls, and they are very numerous there now. Deny, see on "Mat 16:24".[1] Even if I must die, is the exact translation; that of Com. Ver., Though I should die, is inadequate. Peter is so extremely self-confident through consciousness of real and honest attachment, that even the Master’s own warning cannot make him think it possible that he would do such a thing. And encouraged by his ardor and positiveness the other disciples make similar assurances. Compare the proposal of Thomas some weeks before, (Joh 11:16) "Let us also go, that we may die with him." We have no reason to believe that any of the ten did formally deny their Lord, though they all left him and fled, Peter and John presently returning. (Mat 26:56) All four of the accounts of the warning to Peter include the cock-crowing and ’deny me thrice.’ But in Luke and John the confident expressions of Peter are called forth by sayings of our Lord quite different from each other, and from that recorded by Matthew and Mark. In John, Peter wishes to go with the Master now, and asserts that he has no fear of perils: "I will lay down my life for thy sake." In Luke, Jesus speaks of Satan’s asking for the disciples that he might sift them; he says he has made special supplication for Peter, and adds an injunction that after turning again he must stablish his brethren. Peter repels the implication that he will go wrong and have to turn, saying, "Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death," Rev. Ver. In each case, our Lord replies by substantially the same warning as in Matthew and Mark. It is not necessary for us to consolidate or concatenate all these distinct occasions for the warning. Probably the conversation was more extended than any of the narratives would indicate. And a few missing points of information might harmonize all the accounts.
[1] In 1885 was published, see "Theolog. Literaturzeitung," 13 June, a papyrus fragment in Greek, brought from Egypt to Vienna, which forms a shorter parallel to v. 31-34, and Mar 14:27-30. As completed and translated, it reads, "[And after] eating, as they were going forth: I will smite the [shepherd and the] sheep will be scattered. Upon Peter’s [saying], even if all, no[t I, he said to him], the cock will crow twice, and thou first (i. e. before that) wilt thrice deny me." Harnack thinks this shorter account is froma gospel earlier than Matt, and Mark. But It Is easier to suppose, with Warfield and Heft, that this is a mere abridgement of the gospel story, given from memory in some homily or practical treatise. The reasons cannot be here presented.
Homiletical And Practical
Mat 26:17-19. The externals of religious service. (1) They should be observed with forethought and propriety. (2) They are a proper subject of request for the Lord’s guidance. (3) They offer many opportunities of honouring the Lord with our substance, Mat 26:18. (4) Yet, alas! they are sometimes shared by one whose heart is set on worldliness and wickedness, Mat 26:21; compare Php 3:18.—Mat 26:21-25. The betrayal foretold. (1) Consciousness of good intentions cannot always save us from fear of committing great sin, Mat 26:22; 1Co 10:12. (2) The most affecting associations and solemn warnings may not prevent desperate wickedness. (3) One whose heart is set on the darkest crime may sometimes talk calmly and with affected modesty, 1Co 10:25. (4) A bad man may be unintentionally accomplishing some exalted purpose of God, Mat 26:24;. (compare Psa 76:10) (5) The fact that an evil action is overruled for good does not lessen its guilt and penalty, Mat 26:24. (6) It is possible for human wickedness to make human existence a curse, Mat 26:24.—Mat 26:26-28. The bread and wine. (1) Jesus has bidden us commemorate, not his birth, his miracles, his triumphal entry, but his death. (2) His death sealed a covenant of salvation, (compare Heb 9:19 f.) making atonement for sin, and purchasing forgiveness for sinners. (3) To eat and drink these simple emblems of his body and blood should awaken, grateful remembrance of him, (1Co 11:24 f.) and stir the strong desire to live for him who died for us.—Mat 26:28. Henry: " (1) ’It is my blood of the covenant.’ (2) It is shed for many. (3) Unto remission of sins."—Mat 26:33. Henry: "Those are often least safe that are most secure."
John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v20 And as they did eat, He said, Verily I…
Mat_26:20-25
And as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me.
Read full note →
Self-distrust
Every man is a mystery to himself. In every soul there lie, coiled and dormant, like hybernating snakes, evils that a very slight rise in the temperature will wake up into poisonous activity. Let no man say, in foolish self-confidence, that any form of sin which his brother has ever committed, is impossible for him. Temperament shields us from much, no doubt. There are sins that we are inclined to, and there are sins that we have no mind to. But the identity of human nature is deeper than the diversity of temperament.
I. All sins are at bottom but varying forms of one root. The essence of every evil is selfishness; and when you have that, it is exactly as with cooks who have the stock by the fireside-they can make any kind of soup out of it, with the right flavouring. All sin is living to oneself instead of to God, and it may easily pass from one form of evil into another, just as light and heat, motion and electricity, are all various forms of one force. Doctors will tell you there are forms of disease which slip from one kind of sickness into another; so, if we have got the infection about us, it is a matter very much of accidental circumstances what shape it takes.
II. All sin is gregarious. The tangled mass of sin is like one of those great fields of sea-weed that you sometimes come across upon the ocean, all hanging together by a thousand slimy growths; which, if lifted from the wave at any point, drags up yards of it inextricably grown together. No man commits only one kind of transgression. All sins hunt in couples.
III. All sin is but yielding to tendencies common to us all. The greatest transgressions have resulted from yielding to tendencies which are common to us all. Cain killed his brother from jealousy; David befouled his name and his reign by animal passion; Judas betrayed Christ because he was fond of money. Many a man has murdered another simply because he had a hot temper. And you have got a temper, and love of money, and animal passions, and that which may stir you up into jealousy. Your neighbours house has caught fire and been blown up. Your house, too, is built of wood, and thatched with straw, and you have as much dynamite in your cellars as he had in his. Do not be too sure that yon are safe from the danger of explosion.
IV. All transgression is yielding to temptations that assail all men. Here are one hundred men in a plague-stricken city; they have all got to draw their water from the same well. If five or six of them died of cholera, it would be very foolish of the other ninety-five to say, There is no chance of my being touched. And we all live in the same atmosphere; and the temptations that have overcome these men, that have headed the count of crimes appeal to you.
V. Men will gradually drop down to the level which, before they began the descent, seemed to be impossible to them. First, the imagination is inflamed, then the wish begins to draw the soul to the sin, then conscience pulls it hack, then the fatal decision is made, and the deed is done. Sometimes all the stages are hurried quickly through, and a man spins downhill as cheerily and fast as a diligence down the Alps. Sometimes, as the coast of a country may sink am inch in a century, until long miles of the fiat sea-beach are under water, and towers and cities are buried beneath the barren waves, so our lives may be gradually lowered, with a motion imperceptible but most real, bringing us down within high-water mark, and at last the tide may wash over what was solid land. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Is it I?-Sinful possibilities
A moment of dismay among the disciples. The Master had just declared that one of them should commit an act of the basset treachery, and betray Him to His enemies. How do they take His words? Do they break out in indignant remonstrance? Do they fall to accusing one another? Does each draw back from his brother apostle in horror at the thought that possibly that brother apostle is he who is to do this dreadful thing? No; they are all self-engrossed; each mans anxiety is turned, not towards his brother, but towards himself. Now, there are times in the lives of all of us, when that comes to us which came here to Christs disciples.
I. When we see deep and flagrant sin in some other man. While the act from which we recoil is repugnant to our conscientiousness, the powers that did it and the motives that stirred those powers into action are human, and such as we possess and feel.
II. When we do some small sin, and recognize the deep power of sinfulness by which we do it. The slightest crumbling of the earth beneath your feet makes you aware of the precipice. The least impurity makes you ready to cry out, as some image of hideous lust rises before you, Oh, is it I? Can I come to that?
III. The expression of any suspicion about us by another person. Perfectly unwarrantable and false we may know the charge to be; but the mere fastening of the sin and our name together, must turn our eyes in on ourselves and set us to asking, Is it possible? I did not do this thing, indeed. My conscience is clear. But am I not capable of it? Is there not a fund of badness in me which might lead me almost anywhere? And if so, can I blaze up into fiery indignation at mens daring to suspect me? Can I resent suspicion as an angel might, who, standing in the light of God, dreaded and felt sin? No; our disavowal of the sin would be mot boisterously angry, but quiet, and solemn, and humble, with a sense of danger, and gratitude for preservation.
IV. By a strange but very natural process, the same result often comes from just the opposite cause. Unmerited praise reveals to us our unworthiness. A man comes up to our life, and, looking round upon the crowd of our fellow men, he says, See, I will strike the life of this brother of ours, and you shall hear how true it rings. He does strike, and it does seem to them to ring true, and they shout their applause; but we whose life is struck feel running all through us at the stroke the sense of hollowness. Our soul sinks as we hear the praises. They start desire, but they reveal weakness. No true man is ever so humble and so afraid of himself as when others are praising him most loudly.
V. Every temptation which comes to us, however bravely and successfully it may be resisted, opens to us the sight of some of our human capacity for sin. The man who dares to laugh at a temptation which he has felt anal resisted is not yet wholly safe out of its power. (Phillips Brooks, D. D.)
The apostles doubt of themselves
The form of the question in the original suggests that they expected a negative answer, and might be reproduced in English, Surely it is not I? None of them could think that he was the traitor, yet none of them could be sure that he was not. Their Master knew better than they did; and so, from a humble knowledge of what lay in them, coiled and slumbering, but there, they will not meet His words with a contradiction, but with a questions (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Need for self-control
Do not say. I know when to stop. Do not say, I can go so far; it will not do me any harm. Many a man has said that, and been ruined by it. Do not say, It is natural to me to have these inclinations and tastes, and there can be no harm in yielding to them. It is perfectly natural for a man to stoop down over the edge of a precipice to gather the flowers that are growing in some cranny in the cliff; and it is as natural for him to topple over, and be smashed to a mummy at the bottom! God gave you your dispositions, and your whole nature under lock and key; keep them so! (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Reward of treason
Philip, Duke of Austria, paid the ambassadors of Charles IV. (who had betrayed their trust) in counterfeit coin; and when they complained, made reply, that false coin is good enough for false knaves. James I., king of Scotland, was murdered in Perth by Waiter, Earl of Athol, in hope to have the crown; and crowned he was indeed, but with a crown of red-hot iron clapped upon his head, being one of the tortures wherewith he ended at once his wicked days and devices. And Guy Gawkes, that Spanish pioneer, should have received his reward of five hundred pounds at an appointed place in Surrey, but instead thereof, he had been paid home with a brace of bullets for his good service, if justice had not come in with a halter by way of prevention. Thus traitors have always become odious, though the treason were commodious. (Spencer.)
Apostates
In the long line of portraits of the Doges, in the palace at Venice, one space is empty, and the semblance of a black curtain remains as a melancholy record of glory forfeited. Found guilty of treason against the State, Marine Falieri was beheaded, and his image as far as possible blotted from remembrance. As we regarded the singular memorial we thought of Judas and Demas, and then, as we heard in spirit the masters warning word, One of you shall betray Me, we asked within our soul the solemn question, Lord, is it I? Every ones eye rests longer on the one dark vacancy than upon any one of the many fine portraits of the merchant monarchs; and so the apostates of the Church are far more frequently the theme of the worlds talk than the thousands of good men and true who adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Hence the more need of care on the part of those of us whose portraits are publicly exhibited as saints, lest we should one day be painted out of the Churchs gallery, and our persons only remembered as having been detestable hypocrites. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Treachery, audacity, and hypocrisy
We have here an example of fixed determination to do evil, unshaken by the clearest knowledge that it is evil. Judas heard his crime described in its own ugly reality. He heard his fate proclaimed by lips of absolute love and truth; and notwithstanding both, he comes unmoved and unshaken with his question. The dogged determination in the man, that dares to see his evil stripped naked and is not ashamed, is even more dreadful than the hypocrisy and sleek simulation of friendship in his face. Most men turn away with horror from even the sins that they are willing to do, when they are put plainly and bluntly before them. We have two sets of names for wrong things; one of which we apply to our brethrens sins and the other to the same sins in ourselves. What I do is prudence, what you do of the same sort is covetousness; what I do is sowing my wild oats, what you do is immorality and dissipation; what I do is generous living, what you do is drunkenness and gluttony; what I do is righteous indignation, what you do is passionate anger. And so you may go the whole round of evil. Very bad are the men who can look at their deed, described in its own inherent deformity, and yet say, Yes, that is it, and I am going to do it. One of you shall betray Me. Yes, I will betray you. It must have taken something to look into the Masters face, and keep the fixed purpose steady. This obstinate condition of dogged determination to do a wrong thing, knowing it to be a wrong thing, is a condition to which all evil steadily tends. We may not come to it in this world, but we are getting towards it in regard of the special wrong deeds and desires that we cherish and commit. And when a man has once reached the point of saying to evil, Be thou my good, then he is a devil, in the true meaning of the word; and wherever he is, he is in hell! (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Supper with the twelve
On the eve of the crucifixion Jesus sat down to supper with the twelve, in the room which had been provided and prepared for them.
I. A picture of the poverty of Jesus on the eve of discharging the greatest debt ever owed by man. He must borrow a room and accept the hospitality of a stranger. But in a moral sense he was rich and able to atone for the sins of men. We must not judge the worth of a person by outward circumstances.
II. A picture of the calmness of Jesus on the eve of enduring the greatest anguish ever borne by man. With calmness he sat down with the twelve on the eve of the greatest suffering.
III. A picture of the friendlessness of Jesus on the eve of experiencing the greatest desertion ever known by man, He sat down with the very men who were to forsake him; but He utters no word of stern rebuke. (F. W. Brown.)
Christ foretelling the treachery of Judas
I. There is the prediction and it discovers to us-
1. The close and constant view which the Lord Jesus seems to have taken of His final sufferings.
2. The naturalness of our Lords mind; by this I mean its resemblance to our own minds. He has our inward nature. He felt treachery.
3. The exceeding tenderness of Christ. He cared for the love of the men around Him.
4. The wonderful self-denial of our Lord. He did not treat Judas differently from the other disciples, though so long false.
II. The effect produced on the disciples by this prediction.
1. Their simple faith in their Lords prediction.
2. Their warm love for Christ.
3. Their great self-distrust, (C. Bradley.)
Is it I?-
When the wind is rising it is good for each ship at sea to look to its own ropes and sails, and not stand gazing to see how ready the other ships are to meet it. We all feel that we would rather hear a man asking about himself anxiously than to see him so sure of himself that the question never occurred to him. We should be surer of his standing firm if we saw that he knew he was in danger of a fall. Now, all this is illustrated in Christs disciples. (Phillips Brooks.)
Judas rebuked by Christ
You have here an account of how our Lord, whilst partaking of the last supper with His disciples, predicted His betrayal. The disciples were greatly moved by the declaration: it is a good sign when we are less suspicious of others than of ourselves-Lord, is it I?
I. We regard the sayings of our Lord at this time as uttered with special reference to Judas, with the merciful design of warning him of the enormity of his projected crime, and thus, if possible, of withholding him from its commission. It is easy to see an adaptation between the words used by Christ and the feelings which may have been working in Judas. The Son of Man goeth as it is written of Him. Judas may have thought that he was helping forward the work of the Messiah; the crucifixion was a determined thing. Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Judas was free in his treachery, acted from his own will, in obedience to his depraved passions, as if there had been no Divine foreknowledge. Oh! the vanity of the thought that God ever places us under a necessity of sinning, or that because our sins may turn to His glory they will not also issue in our shame.
II. Let us now glance at another delusion to which it is likely that Judas gave indulgence; this is the delusion as to the consequences, the punishment of sin being exaggerated. There is such energy in conscience that it would hardly let a man run on flagrant acts of sin if there were not some drug by which it were lulled. It may be that Judas could hardly persuade himself that a Being so beneficent as Christ, whom he had seen healing the sick, could lay aside the graciousness of His nature, and avenge a wrong by surrendering the evil doer to interminable woe. But our Lords words meet this delusion-It had been good for that man if he had not been born. We expect to find Judas overawed by this saying.
III. It reveals his utter moral hardness. Christ had said, Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. At this saying Judas asks, Lord, is it I? Numbers bear themselves proudly against Christ and His gospel and go forth from the very sanctuary, with the words of condemnation in their ears, to do precisely the things by which that sentence is incurred. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv17, 18, 20 17. Now the first day of the feast of…
17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. Strictly speaking, the 15th of Nisan (part of our March and April), after the paschal lamb was killed, but here the 14th day (Thursday). See Exod. 12:16. This suggests one of the most difficult questions of Scripture chronology, whether the Lord ate the passover one day before the regular Jewish passover, or at the usual time. Pressense, Milman, Ellicott, Townsend, Alford, Neander, Farrar, and many other great authorities, hold that he ate it the day preceding, and died on the day and about the time the Jewish passover lambs were slain. The statements of John 19:14, that the supper was eaten, the Lord betrayed and condemned before the passover, seem positive. Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover? According to the directions given in Deut. 16:1–15, the passover must be eaten in the place where the Lord's name was recorded, or where the tabernacle or temple was located.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 Mat 26:17-19; Luk 22:7-13; Mar 14:12-16. It is now…
PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER
Mat 26:17-19; Luk 22:7-13; Mar 14:12-16. It is now Thursday morning, the Passover beginning properly on the following Sabbath; but these two preceding days are occupied in preparation for the great national solemnity. Josephus says it was not uncommon for them to slaughter two hundred and fifty thousand lambs during a single Passover. O what a wonderful symbolization of Calvary’s bleeding Lamb! “On the first day of unleavened bread, when they were accustomed to slay the Passover, His disciples say to Him, Where do You wish that, having gone, we may prepare that You may eat the Passover? And He sends two of His disciples, and says to them [Peter and John — see Luk 22:8], Go ye into the city, and a man carrying a pitcher of water will meet you; follow him. And whithersoever he may go in, say to the landlord that the Teacher says, Where is the guest-chamber, where I may eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room, furnished, ready; there prepare for us. And His disciples departed, and came into the city, and found as He said to them, and prepared the Passover.” They escorted me, during both of my tours in Jerusalem, to a large upper room in the City of David, on the summit of Mount Zion, which they claim to be identical with the one here mentioned, which received imperishable notoriety for the Last Supper, the winding up and abolishment of the Passover, which had been so prominent since that memorable night when they began their exodus out of Egypt, no longer slaves, but a free and independent nation, Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, having broken every chain; meanwhile its celebrity was augmented by the imperishable memories of the wonderful Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost and fire fell on the disciples, the full-orbed gospel dispensation, under the auspices of entire sanctification, pouring down from heaven like a deluge, converting three thousand, and in a day or two five thousand more, giving a boom to the Church of the Nazarenes which shook the world with the tread of an earthquake, and, glory to God! It is still heaving and quaking.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v17 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXVII. Preparation for…
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [CXVII. Preparation for Passover].
CXVII. PREPARATION FOR PASSOVER. DISCIPLES CONTEND FOR PRECEDENCE. (Bethany to Jerusalem. Thursday afternoon and, after sunset, beginning of Friday.) aMATT. XXVI. 17-20; bMARK XIV. 12-17; cLUKE XXII. 7-18, 24-30.
Read full note →
c7 And the day of unleavened bread came, on which the passover must be sacrificed. [See Exo_12:8), and a room for the feast must be secured.] 13 And he sendeth { csent Peter and John, btwo of his disciples, csaying, God and make ready for us the passover, that we may eat. 9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we make ready? 10 And he said { bsaith unto them, Go into the city, and cBehold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house whereinto he goeth. b14 and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to c11 And ye shall say unto the master of the house, aGo into the city to such a man, and say unto him, cThe Teacher saith unto thee, aMy time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. cWhere is the bmy guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? [It was customary for the residents of Jerusalem to open their houses for guests during this feast, and therefore Jesus might have presumed on the hospitality of almost anyone; but the probability is that the man to whom he sent this message was an acquaintance and a friend. It is not improbable that Jesus let Peter and John thus find the place that Judas might not know its whereabouts in time to bring the officers of the Sanhedrin so as to interrupt the feasts which meant so much to him and to his church.] 15 And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished i and ready: and there make ready for us. 16 And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. a19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover. b17 And a20 Now when even was come, bwhen it was evening he cometh with the twelve [The law required that the paschal lamb should be slain "between the evenings." The Jews reckoned the two evenings as from three o'clock to sunset, and from sunset to nine o'clock, which was the end of the first watch. But [645] Josephus tells us that the lambs were killed from the ninth to the eleventh hours, or between the hours of three and five. It would take some time to dress the lamb and to roast it, so that it must have been about sundown or shortly afterward when Jesus and his disciples sat down to the feast.] c14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him. 15 And ahe was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples; 21 and che said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16 for I say unto you, I shall not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [Jesus had desired to keep with his disciples this last type which stood so close to the thing typified. It was a feast commemorating a great deliverance from death through the sacrifice of a lamb, and the real sacrifice and deliverance of which it was typical were about to be fulfilled in the unfolding of the kingdom of God.] 17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. [Luke brings out the parallelism between the passover and the Lord's supper. Each consisted in eating followed by drinking, and the closeness of the parallel is emphasized by the use of almost the same words with regard to the cup. The passover was typical of the Lord's suffering before the event, and the Lord's supper is typical of the same thing after the event.] 24 And there arose also a contention among them, which of them was accounted to be greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 But ye i shall not be so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am in the midst of you as he that serveth. [In sending to secure the room in which [646] the paschal supper was being eaten, Jesus had said, "My time is at hand." Such expressions were falsely construed by the apostles. They thought that Jesus was about to set up his kingdom, and began at once to contend for the chief places. Jesus rebukes this false ambition in much the same manner as he had previously. See Jam_1:2, Jam_1:3). For the rest of the passage compare the remarks on 2Sa_9:7, 2Sa_19:28), and indicate that the apostles, being about to participate in the Lord's condemnation and suffering, should in the end share his exaltation and its attendant joys.]
[FFG 644-647]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v20 sat down with the twelve
sat down with the twelve
The order of events on the night of the Passover supper appears to have been:
Read full note →
(1) The taking by our Lord and the disciples of their places at the table;
(2) the contention who should be greatest;
(3) the feet washing;
(4) the identification Judas as the traitor;
(5) the withdrawal of Judas;
(6) the institution of the supper;
(7) the words of Jesus while still in the room Mat 26:26-29; Luk 22:35-38; Joh 13:3-35; Mat 14:1-31
(8) the words of Jesus between the room and the garden Mat 26:31-35; Mar 14:26-31; Joh 15:16; Joh 15:17 it seems probable that the high-priestly prayer Joh 17:1-26 was uttered after they reached the garden;
(9) the agony in the garden;
(10) the betrayal and arrest;
(11) Jesus before Caiaphas; Peter’s denial.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv17, 20 Arrangements for the Passover meal:
Arrangements for the Passover meal:
v. 17. Now the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?
Read full note →
v. 18. And He said, Go into the city to such a man and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with My disciples.
v. 19. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.
The Passover was also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Luk 22:1, and since all leaven was removed from the homes of the Jews on the afternoon of the 14th
of Nisan, in preparation for the Passover sacrifice and meal, this day of preparation was simply regarded as one of the festival days, especially since it merged into the 15th
, the Passover beginning with sundown, approximately six o’clock in the evening at that time of the year. Jesus had had the custom of celebrating the feast with His disciples, which explains their question as to the place in which they would have their supper. The preparations for the Passover consisted in procuring a lamb which measured up to the qualifications of God’s institution, in having this slain by the priests in the court of the Temple, in providing the unleavened loaves and the other requisites for the feast, in having the lamb roasted, and in preparing the table, the sofas, and the pillows for the dining-room. Two of the disciples, Peter and John, were commissioned to attend to this work, Jesus giving them another bit of evidence as to His omniscient power. They were to go to a certain place, which Christ designated very exactly, to a man whom He also described to them, and give him a message. The Lord’s time was near, even at hand, that time to which His entire life converged, the time when He would be taken up into glory through suffering and death. With him, in this certain man’s house, He would celebrate the Passover with His disciples. It is likely, as has been suggested, that this man was a disciple of Jesus in secret, just as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were. The disciples carried out the wishes of the Master in every detail, acting as the representatives of the householder in making all arrangements for the evening.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv17, 20 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
This begins the account of Jesus celebrating the Passover with his disciples.
Read full note →
Now
This word is used here to mark a break in the main story line. Here Matthew starts to tell a new part of the story.
He said, "Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples."'"
This has quotations within quotations. You can state some of the direct quotations as indirect quotations. AT: "He told his disciples to go into the city to a certain man and tell him that the Teacher says to him, 'My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.'" or "He told his disciples to go into the city to a certain man and say to him that the Teacher's time is at hand and he will keep the Passover with his disciples at that man's house." (See: Quotes Within Quotes and Direct and Indirect Quotations)
My time
Possible meanings are 1) "The time that I told you about" or 2) "The time God has set for me."
is at hand
Possible meanings are 1) "is near" or 2) "has come." (See: Idiom)
keep the Passover
"eat the Passover meal" or "celebrate the Passover by eating the special meal"
translationWords
unleavened bread
disciple
Jesus
Passover
teacher
hand
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v18 26:18 My time: The Messiah would now complete the…
26:18 My time: The Messiah would now complete the work for which he was commissioned, to die for the sins of the world.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.