‘And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “Drink you all of it, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.”

Jesus then took the cup. It was the normal custom at Passover for each participant to have his own cup, but it would appear that here Jesus shares His cup with His disciples. The change was of deep significance. It was necessary that they all participate of His cup (compare Mat 20:23), for it was His blood that was shed in order to establish the new covenant. It stressed that only in Him was there forgiveness and life.

‘He gave thanks.’ In view of what He knew about the significance of that cup this was a sign of His ultimate faith in His Father. He was able to give thanks because He knew that all that was to happen was in His Father’s will, and because He was giving thanks on behalf of them all. And He did it with full awareness of the significance of the cup for Him, as He now declares. For what this cup symbolised was what He would later seek to withdraw from as the horror of it struck home to His soul (Mat 26:39; Mat 26:42).

‘Drink you all of it.’ All His disciples were being called on to participate to the full in what He was doing for them. If they would enjoy ‘the cup of salvation’ (Psa 116:13, part of the Hallel) they must do so by partaking of the benefits of His death as symbolised by that cup. All must drink of it.

‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’ The phrase ‘blood of the covenant’ is found in Exo 24:8 where it was closely connected with blood shed in sacrifices, and indicated the blood that had been shed and applied in order to ensure atonement (by whole burnt offerings and peace offerings). It was intended to seal the covenant and was applied to the people so as to bind them into that covenant. But here instead of the blood being sprinkled on them, they would partake of it symbolically through partaking of the wine. This was in order to bring home to them how much they must become involved with His death (compare Gal 2:20, ‘I have been crucified with Christ’). They must ‘drink His blood’, that is take on themselves responsibility for His death. So by it they were acknowledging their responsibility for His death.

But Jesus was also here indicating that His blood was sealing a new covenant, a better covenant, although connected with the old. This new covenant is mentioned in Jer 31:31-34 and involved among other things is the imparting of righteousness to them through a spiritual transformation of their lives and through the guarantee of forgiveness (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-13), something which the old covenant had been unable to do. The same idea is found in Eze 16:8; Eze 16:59-60; Eze 16:62-63, again connected with forgiveness (Mat 26:63). In neither case, however, is it connected with a sacrifice.

The pouring out of blood in a covenant necessarily indicates a new, renewed covenant, and while we do not fully know what the shedding of blood in order to seal a covenant specifically indicated, it certainly indicated the life and death importance of the covenant. So to be a part of that covenant was a sacred thing. And as all offerings and sacrifices offered to God contained within them the idea of atonement in one way or another, that would also be included, and is inherent in the reference to the forgiveness of sins.

But the phrase ‘the blood of the covenant of you’ is also found in Zec 9:11, which clearly refers back to Exo 24:8, in the words ‘As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant I have sent forth your prisoners out of the pit in which is no water.’ Here the blood of the covenant which they had with YHWH is specifically linked with the idea of God acting in deliverance, and this in a context continually in mind in Matthew’s narrative (compare Zec 9:9 with Mat 21:5; Zec 1:1 with Mat 23:35; Zec 12:10 with Mat 24:30; Zec 13:7 with Mat 26:31; and Zec 11:13 with Mat 26:15; Mat 27:9). So ‘My blood of the covenant’ indicates a covenant sealed by the blood of Jesus as He is offered on His people’s behalf, which binds all who participate within that covenant to do the will of His Father, offers them full atonement and forgiveness, and promises full deliverance from God’s judgments. And it should be noted here that the idea of the sealing of a new covenant connects very closely with the idea of the establishing of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. That was it purpose at the Exodus (Exo 19:6). And this connection will here come out in the next verse in the reference to the Kingly Rule of His Father. Here then are the ‘sure mercies of David, the everlasting covenant’ (Isa 55:3) obtained by eating bread and drinking wine provided by God without money and without price (Isa 55:1-2), something which is also there connected with the forgiveness of sins (Isa 55:6-7), an eating and drinking which as we have seen is closely involved with His death.

‘Poured out for many for the remission of sins.’ Here we have a link with the One Who ‘poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors’ (Isa 53:12; see also Mar 15:28; Luk 22:37), while the pouring out of blood is regularly connected in the Old Testament with violent death and with sacrificial death. The connection with forgiveness of sins guarantees the sacrificial connection, for forgiveness was obtained through sacrifices (e.g. Leviticus 4-5 regularly; Num 15:25-27). Here then was how Jesus would ‘save His people from their sins’, which is the very significance of His Name (Mat 1:21). He would offer Himself as an offering and sacrifice on their behalf (Mat 20:28; Isa 53:10; Joh 1:29; 1Co 5:7; Heb 9:11-15; Heb 9:26-28; Heb 10:12-14).

‘For many.’ This connects with Isa 53:11-12, where through His humiliation the Righteous Servant, Who had been given as a covenant to the people (Isa 49:8) declares many righteous, and where He bears the sins of many. This linking of forgiveness of sins with the covenant is a vital part of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew. We have, for example, already seen forgiveness as closely associated with the formation of the new Israel in chapter 5-7 (see Mat 6:12; Mat 6:14-15) and chapter 18 (see Mat 18:21-35), both of which are discourses preparing for the new future and the new Israel (Mat 21:43). But the covenant also requires obedience. That is the very nature of a Biblical covenant with God. So Jesus’ message is continually twofold, firstly that God’s blessing comes on His own totally apart from man’s deserving (Mat 5:3-9; Mat 11:6; Mat 11:25-27; Mat 13:16-17; Mat 16:17), and secondly that by so blessing men and women God brings them into personal relationship with Himself through covenant, a relationship which binds them and enables them to do His will, and even demands it (Mat 7:21; Mat 12:50). To put it in more modern terms, there is no salvation without transformed lives and genuine moral response. That is why His demand to us that we live a life of heavenly servitude parallels with and results from His having offered Himself as a ransom for many (Mat 20:25-28).

Thus by drinking of the wine believers declare their responsibility for His death, see themselves as dying with Him (Gal 2:20; Rom 6:4; His shed blood being as it were mingled with their blood – 1Co 10:16), claim their participation in the benefits that result from His death, and confirm themselves as part of the covenant which demands obedience to His will. They thus lay claim to participation in the eternal life being offered to men by Him.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

‘And he took a CUP, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink you all of it, for THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE COVENANT, which is poured out for many to remission of sins.’

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Mat 26:27-28. And he took the cup We learn from Jewish writers, that the wine was mixed with water on these occasions; and from the first fathers, that the primitive Christians adopted this custom. He blessed the cup, according to the usual method mentioned in the note on Mat 26:20. Hence the cup itself is named the cup of blessing. As the words this is my body, signify, “This is the representation of my body,” so the words this is my blood of the new covenant, “this is the representation of my blood of the new covenant.” And by the same rule that difficult expression, 1Co 11:27. Guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, undoubtedly signifies, “guilty of profaning the representation of the body and blood of the Lord.” Wherefore Christ’s meaning in the passage before us was this, “All ofyou, and all my disciples in all ages, as many as shall believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, must drink of this cup, because it represents my blood shed for the remission of men’s sins; my blood, in which the new covenant between God and man is ratified; my blood therefore of the new covenant.” Sothatthisinstitution exhibits to your joyful meditation the grand foundation of men’s hopes, and perpetuates the memory of the same to the end of the world. Every sacrifice consisted of two parts, of flesh and blood; the most considerable part of the sacrifice was the blood; see Lev 17:11 and Exo 24:8. The first covenant was ratified with blood. It is said of the blood of the sacrifices in the place just quoted from Exodus, This is, or behold the blood of the covenant. See 1Ma 6:34. These words of institution relative to the cup, shew, that it is a primary end of this service to bring to the devout remembrance of Christians the death of their Master, as the foundation of the remission of their sins, and, in short, the whole mercy of the new covenant, as founded on the shedding of his blood; therefore they greatly err, who make the keeping up of the memory of Christ’s death in the world, as a simple fact, the only end of the Lord’s supper. Dr. Doddridge upon this subject observes very well, “I apprehend this ordinance of the eucharist to have so plain a reference to the atonement and satisfaction of Christ, and to do so solemn an honour to that fundamental doctrine of the church, that I cannot but believe, that while this sacred institution continues in the church (as itwill undoubtedly till the end of the world) it will be impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain humble Christians, by all the little artifices of such forced and unnatural criticisms as those are by which it has been attacked. The enemies of this heart-reviving doctrine might as well hope to pierce through a coat of mail with a straw, as to reach such a doctrine, defended by such an ordinance as this, with any of their trifling sophistries.” Another able writer has observed as follows: “Strange have been the inferences which the Romanists have pretended to draw from these and some other passages of Scripture of the like import; namely, that the elements of bread and wine are each of them actually transubstantiated into the whole natural body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ; but it may reasonably be asked, why these persons endeavour to impose such an unwarrantable signification on the above terms, while at the same time they deny that other parts of the sacred writ, which are expressed in the like words, (see 1Co 12:27. Eph 1:22-23.) can ever be admitted to have any such meaning. However, to speak more directly to the point, certain it is, that the above doctrine cannot be contained in the places under consideration, as it is impossible to be true in the very nature of the thing. This must evidently appear, from the following absolute contradictions, which, among many others, the transubstantiation in question necessarilyimplies, and towhich it is obvious the most unlimited power can never give a being:that the same numerical body which has invariably existed for more than eighteen hundred years, does often at this time begin to be;that the body of Christ is formed out of a particular substance, which never had a being till many centuries after the said body had unchangeably existed in full perfection;that the body aforesaid does at once exist in its own proper form, and not in its own proper form; that the said body is at one and the same moment of time both greater and less than itself, (the size of an ordinary man, and yet no larger than a grain of sand:) that the above body is remote and distant from itself; that it is where it is not; that it is at once plainly seen and not seen by the same persons; that it is in real motion, while at absolute rest; that it comes where it was not before, and never comes to such place at all; that it is always in a glorified state, incapable of the least injury or defilement, and yet is sometimes not only eaten by the most contemptible vermin, but likewise totally immersed in the worst filthiness.” These observations abundantly demonstrate the falsehood of the tenet above mentioned; and with regard to the phrases, this is my bodythis is my blood, it is to be observed, that they are figurative; their precise meaning is, “This is symbolically, representatively, interpretatively, my bodymy blood.” Thus, 1Co 10:3-4 manna is affirmed to have been spiritual meat, and water spiritual drink, and the drinkers of the same are said to have drank Christ; that is, not literally, but symbolically, and in divine construction. In Exo 7:1. Moses is declared to have been made a god to Pharaoh, that is to say, representatively. So Mat 19:6 man and wife are asserted to be one flesh; that is to say, are considered in that view by Almighty God. In 1Co 6:11; 1Co 6:17 he that is joined to the Lord, is affirmed to be one spirit (with him); that is to say, in divine estimation; and

1Co 12:27 the church is said to be the body of Christ, and the several individuals which compose it, members in particular; that is to say, not corporeally so, but mystically, according to the established rules of the Christian oeconomy. The doctrine therefore contained in the passages under examination is, that by divine appointment the sacred elements do, in their use, actually signify, stand for, and represent the body of Christ as broken upon the cross, and his blood as shed there for our sins. Such is the true interpretation of the foregoing controverted sentences; which at the same time that it corresponds with the analogy of faith, is likewise agreeable to the sentiments of the best divines, both primitive and reformed. See Waterland on the Eucharist, ch. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 26:27 . Matthew says indefinitely: a cup, for before . is spurious. Luke and Paul are somewhat more precise, inasmuch as they speak of the cup as having been the one which was presented . Accordingly, the cup in question here is usually understood to have been the poculum benedictionis , referred to above under No. 8, the third cup. But in that case what becomes of the fourth one, over which the second part of the Hallel was sung? As it is not likely that this latter would be omitted; as it is no less improbable that Jesus, after investing the cup now under consideration with the symbolism of His blood, would have sent round another after it with which no such symbolical significance was associated; as Mat 26:29 expressly forbids the supposition of another cup having followed; and as, in the last place, mention is made of the Hallel (the second portion of it) as coming immediately after the drinking of this one, we are bound to suppose that it is the fourth cup that is here meant, and in regard to which Maimonides (as quoted by Lightfoot) observes: “ Deinde miscet poculum quartum, et super illud perficit 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 quicquam gustat ista nocte.” Paul, no doubt, expressly calls the cup used at the supper (1Co 10:16 ), which corresponds with the name of the third cup (see on Mat 26:26 ); but, as the epexegetical shows, this designation is not a terminus technicus taken from the Jewish ritual, but it is to be traced to the Christian standpoint, in fact, to the Christian act of consecration. See on 1Co 10:16 .

For the size of the Passover cups, and what is said about the wine being red and mixed with water, consult Grotius and Lightfoot. In the Constitt. Ap. viii. 12. 16, Christ Himself is even spoken of as .

.] is substantially the same as ., Mat 26:26 , which latter has reference to the phraseology of the prayer (benedictus, etc.), comp. Mat 14:19 ; Luk 24:30 ; Act 27:35 ; 1Ti 4:3 f.; Mat 15:36 . The was a thanksgiving prayer. Comp. on 1Co 14:16 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Ver. 27. And he took the cup ] Anciently of glass, afterwards of wood, and lastly of silver or gold. Whence that saying of a father, Once there were wooden cups, golden priests; now there are golden cups, but wooden priests.

Drink ye all of it ] This is express against that Antichristian sacrilege of robbing the people of the cup. Eckius a saith the people ought to content themselves with the bread only, because, Equi donati non sunt inspiciendi dentes, ” A gift horse is not to be looked in the mouth.” He thought, likewise, that laymen could not claim any right to the bread either. Bellarmine, a little wiser, grants they have a right to the bread, but adds, that in eating the bread transubstantiated by the priest into the body of Christ, they drink his blood also. But Lombard (his master) denies this: saying, that the bread is not turned but into Christ’s flesh; nor the wine, but into his blood. And thus these Babel-builders are confounded in their language, and hard it is to know what the Church of Rome holdeth. The Council of Constance speaketh out, and saith, That albeit Christ instituted, and accordingly administered, this sacrament in both kinds, tamen hoc non obstante, all this notwithstanding, the authority of the holy canons and the approved custom of the Church hath and doth deny the cup to the laity. And Nicolas Shetterden, martyr, in his answer compelled the commissary to grant that Christ’s testament was broken, and his institution changed from the way he left it. But he said, they had power so to do. Christ’s redemption is both precious and plenteous. He makes his people a full feast. Bread and wine comprehend entire food; for humidum et siccum, moist and dry, are all that is required unto food, Isa 25:6 . Therefore as he gave them in the wilderness the bread of angels, so he set the rock abroach for them, and so fed them with sacraments. They did “all eat the same spiritual bread, and they did all drink the same spiritual drink,” 1Co 10:3-4 , that the ancient Church might give no warrant of a dry communion. The Russians a kind of mongrel Christians, communicate in both kinds; but mingling both together in a chalice, they distribute it both together in a spoon. (Breerwood’s Inquiries.)

a Apud Manlium in loc. com.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

27. ] , aor. He gave, not to each, but once for all: in remarkable coincidence with Luk 22:17 , . . This was after the meal was ended : . (Luke and 1 Cor.) As remarked above, it is quite uncertain whether our Lord followed minutely the Jewish practices, and we cannot therefore say whether the cup was one of wine and water mixed. It hardly follows from the expression of Mat 26:29 , . . ., that it was of unmixed wine. The word (in Luke and 1 Cor.) contains our . .

] Peculiar to Matthew, preserved however in substance by Mark’s . The is remarkable, especially with reference to the practice of the Church of Rome, which forbids the cup to the laity. Calvin remarks: “Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent; de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satan calliditati ex destinato occurrere voluisset.” (Cited in Stier, vi. 115.) It is on all accounts probable, and this command confirms the probability, that Judas was present , and partook of both parts of this first communion. The expressions are such throughout as to lead us to suppose that the same persons, , were present. On the circumstance mentioned Joh 13:30 , which has mainly contributed to the other opinion, see note there.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 26:27 . , a cup, the article being omitted in best MSS. It is idle, and in spirit Rabbinical, to inquire which of the four cups drunk at the paschal feast. The evangelist had no interest in such a question. : a different word from that used in reference to the bread, but similar in import = having given thanks to God. Observe, Jesus was in the mood, and able, at that hour, to thank and praise, confident that good would come out of evil. In Gethsemane He was able only to submit . , etc.: Mk.’s statement that all drank of the cup, Mt. turns into a direction by Jesus to do so, liturgical practice influencing the report here as in . Jesus would use the fewest words possible at such an hour.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

27.] , aor. He gave, not to each, but once for all: in remarkable coincidence with Luk 22:17, . . This was after the meal was ended: . (Luke and 1 Cor.) As remarked above, it is quite uncertain whether our Lord followed minutely the Jewish practices, and we cannot therefore say whether the cup was one of wine and water mixed. It hardly follows from the expression of Mat 26:29, . . ., that it was of unmixed wine. The word (in Luke and 1 Cor.) contains our . .

] Peculiar to Matthew, preserved however in substance by Marks . The is remarkable, especially with reference to the practice of the Church of Rome, which forbids the cup to the laity. Calvin remarks: Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent; de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satan calliditati ex destinato occurrere voluisset. (Cited in Stier, vi. 115.) It is on all accounts probable, and this command confirms the probability, that Judas was present, and partook of both parts of this first communion. The expressions are such throughout as to lead us to suppose that the same persons, , were present. On the circumstance mentioned Joh 13:30, which has mainly contributed to the other opinion, see note there.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 26:27. , the cup) The same which was there already, from which they had all drunk.-, all) Hence it is clear that even if one species[1132] were sufficient, it must rather be the wine than the bread. Thus also in 1Co 11:25, the expression , as often as, is employed in the mention of the cup [as well as of the bread].[1133] Scripture expressed itself thus, foreseeing (Gal 3:8) what Rome would do.[1134] The disciples then represented the many () who are mentioned in Mat 26:28, where the reason of the injunction is given. Thus many and all are used together in 1Co 10:17. The Holy Supper ought not to be a matter of indifference to Christians.

[1132] The word is here used in the technical sense in which Theologians employ it to denote separately the bread and wine, in contradistinction to each other.-(I. B.)

[1133] After eating the bread, the drinking of the cup is not left as a matter of our own option to do or not do as we think fit.-V. g.

[1134] Sc. refuse the cup to the Laity, etc.-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

he took: Mar 14:23, Mar 14:24, Luk 22:20

Drink: Psa 116:13, Son 5:1, Son 7:9, Isa 25:6, Isa 55:1, 1Co 10:16, 1Co 11:28

Reciprocal: Mat 14:19 – he blessed Mat 15:36 – and gave thanks

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6:27

It might be asked why the cup was not “blessed” if it is as important as the bread; it was. The definition of “blessed” is, “to praise, celebrate with praises,” as may be seen in comments on the preceding verse. In thanking God for the cup one would thereby be praising it. Matthew uses the two terms, blessed and thanks, as being the same in principle. Drink ye all of it means for all of them to drink of it. The priests of Rome insist on doing the drinking tor the others, which is a contradiction of the instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

[The cup.] Bread was to be here at this supper by divine institution: but how came the wine to be here? And how much? And of what sort?

I. “A tradition. It is necessary that a man should cheer up his wife and his children for the feast. But how doth he cheer them up? With wine.” The same things are cited in the Babylonian Talmud: “The Rabbins deliver,” say they, “that a man is obliged to cheer up his wife and his domestics in the feast; as it is said, ‘And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast.’ (Deu 16:14). But how are they cheered up? With wine. R. Judah saith, ‘Men are cheered up with something agreeable to them; women, with that which is agreeable to them.’ That which is agreeable to men to rejoice them is wine. But what is that which is agreeable to women to cheer them? Rabh Joseph saith, ‘Dyed garments in Babylon, and linen garments in the land of Israel.’ ”

II. Four cups of wine were to be drunk up by every one: “All are obliged to four cups; men, women, and children: R. Judah saith, ‘But what have children to do with wine?’ But they give them wheat and nuts,” etc.

The Jerusalem Talmudists give the reason of the number, in the place before quoted, at full. Some, according to the number of the four words made use of in the history of the redemption of Israel out of Egypt, And I will bring forth, and I will deliver, and I will redeem, and I will take; some, according to the number of the repetition of the word cup; in Gen 40:11; Gen 40:13; which is four times; some, according to the number of the four monarchies; some, according to the number of the four cups of vengeance which God shall give to the nations to drink, Jer 25:15; Jer 51:7; Psa 11:6; Psa 75:8. And according to the number of the four cups which God shall give Israel to drink, Psa 23:5; Psa 16:5; Psa 116:13. The cup of two salvations.

III. The measure of these cups is thus determined: “Rabbi Chaia saith, ‘Four cups contain an Italian quart of wine.’ ” And more exactly in the same place: “How much is the measure of a cup? Two fingers square, and one finger and a half, and a third part of a finger deep.” The same words you have in the Babylonian Talmud at the place before quoted, only with this difference, that instead of the third part of a finger; there is the fifth part of a finger.

IV. It is commanded, that he should perform this office with red wine. So the Babylonian, “It is necessary that it should taste, and look like wine.” The Gloss, that it should be red.

V. If he drinks wine pure; and not mingled with water, he hath performed his duty; but commonly they mingled water with it: hence, when there is mention of wine in the rubric of the feasts, they always use the word they mingle him a cup. Concerning that mingling, both Talmudists dispute in the forecited chapter of the Passover: which see. “The Rabbins have a tradition. Over wine which hath not water mingled with it they do not say that blessing, ‘Blessed be He that created the fruit of the vine’; but, ‘Blessed be he that created the fruit of the tree.’ ” The Gloss, “Their wine was very strong; and not fit to be drunk without water,” etc. The Gemarists a little after: “The wise agree with R. Eleazar, ‘That one ought not to bless over the cup of blessing till water be mingled with it.’ ” The mingling of water with every cup was requisite for health, and the avoiding of drunkenness. We have before taken notice of a story of Rabban Gamaliel, who found and confessed some disorder of mind, and unfitness for serious business, by having drunk off an Italian quart of wine. These things being thus premised, concerning the paschal wine, we now return to observe this cup of our Saviour.

After those things which used to be performed in the paschal supper, as is before related, these are moreover added by Maimonides: “Then he washeth his hands, and blesseth the blessing of the meat ” [that is, gives thanks after meat], “over the third cup of wine, and drinks it up.” That cup was commonly called the cup of blessing; in the Talmudic dialect. The cup of blessing is when they give thanks after supper; saith the Gloss on Babylonian Berac. Where also in the text many thinkings are mentioned of this cup: “Ten things are spoken of the cup of blessing. Washing and cleansing “: [that is, to wash the inside and outside, namely, that nothing should remain of the wine of the former cups]. “Let pure wine” be poured into the cup, and water mingled with it there. “Let it be full: the crowning “; that is, as the Gemara, “by the disciples.” While he is doing this, let the disciples stand about him in a crown or ring. The veiling; that is, “as Rabh Papa, he veils himself and sits down; as R. Issai, he spreads a handkerchief on his head. He takes up the cup in both hands; but puts it into his right hand; he lifts it from the table, fixeth his eyes upon it, etc. Some say he imparts it (as a gift) to his family.”

Which of these rites our Saviour made use of, we do not inquire; the cup certainly was the same with the “cup of blessing”: namely, when, according to the custom, after having eaten the farewell morsel of the lamb, there was now an end of supper, and thanks were to be given over the third cup after meat, he takes that cup, and after having returned thanks, as is probable, for the meat, both according to the custom, and his office, he instituted this for a cup of eucharist or thanksgiving; The cup of blessing which we bless; 1Co 10:16. Hence it is that Luke and Paul say that he took the cup “after supper”; that is, that cup which closed up the supper.

It must not be passed by, that when he instituted the eucharistical cup, he said, “This is my blood of the new testament,” as Matthew and Mark: nay, as Luke and Paul, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Not only the seal of the covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant: the end of the Mosaical economy, and the confirming of a new one. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, Exodus_24, Hebrews_9, because blood was still to be shed: the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine; because, under the new testament, there was no further shedding of blood. As it is here said of the cup, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” so it might be said of the cup of blood (Exo 24:8), “That cup was the old testament in the blood of Christ.” There, all the articles of that covenant being read over, Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you”: and thus that old covenant or testimony was confirmed. In like manner, Christ having published all the articles of the new covenant, he takes the cup of wine, and gives them to drink, and saith, “This is the new testament in my blood”: and thus the new covenant is established.

There was, besides, a fourth cup, of which our author speaks also; “Then he mingled a fourth cup, and over it he finished the Hallel; and adds, moreover, the blessing of the hymn; which is, ‘Let all thy works praise thee, O Lord,’ etc.; and saith, ‘Blessed is He that created the fruit of the vine’; and afterward he tastes of nothing more that night,” etc. ‘Finisheth the Hallel ‘; that is, he begins there where he left off before, to wit, at the beginning of Psalms_115, and goes on to the end of Psalms_118.

Whether Christ made use of this cup also, we do not dispute; it is certain he used the hymn, as the evangelist tells us, when they had sung a hymn; at the thirtieth verse. We meet with the very same word in Midras Tillim.

And now looking back on this paschal supper, let me ask those who suppose the supper in John_13 to be the same with this, What part of this time they do allot to the washing of the disciples’ feet? What part to Judas’ going out? And what part to his discoursing with the priests, and getting ready his accomplices for their wicked exploit?

I. It seems strange, indeed, that Christ should put off the washing of the disciples’ feet to the paschal supper, when, 1. That kind of action was not only unusual and unheard of at that supper, but in nowise necessary or fitting: for 2. How much more conveniently might that have been performed at a common supper before the Passover, as we suppose, when he was not straitened by the time, than at the paschal supper, when there were many things to be done which required despatch!

II. The office of the paschal supper did not admit of such interruption, nor was it lawful for others so to decline from the fixed rule as to introduce such a foreign matter: and why should Christ so swerve from it, when in other things he conformed himself to the custom of the nation, and when he had before a much more fit occasion for this action than when he was thus pressed and straitened by the time?

III. Judas sat at super with the rest, and was there when he did eat, Mat 26:20-21; Mar 14:18; and, alas! How unusual was it for any to depart, in that manner, from that supper before it was done! It is enough doubted by the Jewish canons whether it were lawful; and how far any one, who had joined himself to this or that family; might leave it to go to another, and take one part of the supper here, and another part there: but for a person to leave the supper and go about another business, is a thing they never in the least dreamed of; they would not, they could not, suppose it. You see how light a matter Judas’ going away to buy necessaries, as the disciples interpreted it, seemed to them, because he went away from a common supper: but if they had seen him thus dismissed, and sent away from the paschal supper, it would have seemed a monstrous and wonderful thing. What! To leave the paschal supper, now begun, to go to market! To go from a common supper at Bethany, to buy necessaries for the Passover, against the time of the Passover, this was nothing strange or unusual: but to go from the paschal supper, before it was done, to a market or fair, was more unusual and strange than that it should be so lightly passed over by the disciples.

We, therefore, do not at all doubt that Judas was present both at the Passover and the eucharist; which Luke affirms in direct words, Luk 22:20-21; nor do we doubt much of his being present at the hymn, and that he went not away before all was done: but when they all rose up from the table, and prepared for their journey to mount Olivet (in order to lie at Bethany, as the disciples supposed), the villainous traitor stole away, and went to the company [cohortes], that he had appointed the priests two days before to make ready for him at such a time and place. Methinks I hear the words and consultations of this bloody wretch: “Tomorrow (saith he) will be the Passover, and I know my Master will come to it: I know he will not lie at Jerusalem, but will go back to Bethany, however late at night, where he is used to lie. Make ready, therefore, for me armed men, and let them come to a place appointed immediately after the paschal supper; and I will steal out privately to them while my Master makes himself ready for his journey; and I will conduct them to seize upon him in the gardens without the city, where, by reason of the solitariness of the place and the silence of the night, we shall be secure enough from the multitude. Do ye make haste to despatch your passovers, that you may meet together at the council after supper, to examine and judge him, when we shall bring him to you; while the silence of the night favours you also, and protects you from the multitude.” Thus, all things are provided against the place and time appointed; and the thief, stealing away from the company of the disciples as they were going out towards the mount of Olives and hastening to his armed confederates without delay, brings them prepared along with him, and sets upon his Master now in the garden.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 26:27. And he took a cup. Luke and Paul, after supper. Although the institution may have been independent of the regular mode of celebrating the Passover, the giving of thanks mentioned here, taken in connection with 1Co 10:16 (the cup of blessing), indicates that this was a cup of thanksgiving, hence probably the third cup of the Passover feast.

Drink ye all of it. All is significant in view of the Romanist usage, which denies the cup to the laity.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Mat 26:27-28. And he took the cup Called by the Jews the cup of thanksgiving; which the master of the family used likewise to give to each after supper. And gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this That is, of the wine which it contains. For this is my blood That is, the sign of my blood; of the new testament Whereby the new testament, or covenant, is procured or confirmed; which is shed for many Even as many as spring from Adam; for the remission of sins Namely, That as many as truly repent, bringing forth fruit worthy of repentance, and believe in me with their hearts unto righteousness, may receive from the mercy of my Father, in a way consistent with his holiness and justice, the free and full remission of all their past sins. See note on Rom 3:24-26. I apprehend, says the last-mentioned divine, this ordinance of the eucharist to have so plain a reference to the atonement or satisfaction of Christ, and to do so solemn an honour to that fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that I cannot but believe, that while this sacred institution continues in the church, (as it will undoubtedly do to the end of the world,) it will be utterly impossible to root that doctrine out of the minds of plain, humble Christians, by all the little artifices of such forced and unnatural criticisms as those are by which it has been attacked. Unprejudiced and honest simplicity will always see the analogy this ordinance has to eating the flesh of the Son of God, and drinking his blood; and will be taught by it, to feed on him as the Lamb that was slain by the gracious appointment of God, to take away the sin of the world. The enemies of this heart-reviving truth might as well hope to pierce through a coat of mail with a straw, as to reach such a truth, defended by such an ordinance as this, by any of their trifling sophistries. For further information respecting the Lords supper, see notes on Luk 22:19-20; 1Co 11:23-34.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye {n} all of it;

(n) Therefore they who took away the cup from the people, disobeyed the instruction of Christ.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

This cup was probably the third cup drunk in the Passover meal, namely, the "cup of blessing." It contained wine diluted with water. This diluted wine was what the Jews usually drank with their meals. [Note: See Robert Stein, "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times," Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11; Norman Geisler, "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking," Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.] Jesus then gave thanks again. The Greek word eucharistesas ("gave thanks") is a cognate of euchariste ("thanksgiving") from which we get the English word "Eucharist," another name for the Lord’s Supper.

Jesus commanded all of His disciples to drink from the cup. They had to personally appropriate what symbolized His blood as they had to personally appropriate what symbolized His body. Together these elements represented Jesus Himself. The Eleven learned to appreciate the larger significance of these things after His resurrection (cf. 1Co 11:23-28).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)