Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:17
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?
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 (paraskeu) 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.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See also Mar 14:12-16; Luk 22:7-13.
Mat 26:17
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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 Hezekiahs 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread,…. There were seven of these days, and this was the first of them, in which the Jews might not eat leavened bread, from the fourteenth, to the twenty first of the month Nisan; in commemoration of their being thrust out of Egypt, in so much haste, that they had not time to leaven the dough, which was in their kneading troughs: wherefore, according to their canons c, on the night of the fourteenth day; that is, as Bartenora explains it, the night, the day following of which is the fourteenth, they search for leaven in all private places and corners, to bring; it out, and burn it, or break it into small pieces, and scatter it in the wind, or throw it into the sea. Mark adds, “when they killed the passover”, Mr 14:12; and Luke says, “when the passover must be killed”, Lu 22:7; which was to be done on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, after the middle of the day; and this was an indispensable duty, which all were obliged to: for so they say d,
“every man, and every woman, are bound to observe this precept; and whoever makes void this commandment presumptuously, if he is not defiled, or afar off, lo! he is guilty of cutting off.”
The time of killing the passover was after the middle of the day; and it is said e that
“if they killed it before the middle of the day it was not right; and they did not kill it till after the evening sacrifice, and after they had offered the evening incense; and after they had trimmed the lamps, they began to slay the passovers, or paschal lambs, unto the end of the day; and if they slayed after the middle of the day, before the evening sacrifice, it was right.”
The reason of this was, because the lamb was to be slain between the two evenings; the first of which began at noon, as soon as ever the day declined: and this was not done privately, but in the temple; for thus it is f affirmed,
“they do not kill the passover but in the court, as the rest of the holy things.”
The time and manner of killing the lamb, and by whom, of the sprinkling of the blood, and of their flaying it, and taking out the fat, and burning it on the altar, may be seen in the Misna g.
The disciples came to Jesus; that is, Peter and John, as may be learnt from Luke 22:8, for these only seem to have had any notion of Judas’s betraying Christ, from what had been said at the supper in Bethany, two days before; the rest thought he was gone to prepare for the feast, and therefore were under no concern about it; but these two judged otherwise, and therefore came to Christ to know his mind concerning it; for it was high time that a preparation should be made; for this was Thursday morning, and the lamb was to be killed in the afternoon, and ate at even.
Saying unto him, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? This question in Luke follows upon an order which Christ gave to these disciples; “saying, go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat”, Lu 22:8: for masters used to give their servants orders to get ready the passover for them; and which were expressed in much such language as this h:
“he that says to his servant, , “go and slay the passover for me”: if he kills a kid, he may eat of it.”
It is reported i of
“Rabban Gamaliel, that he said to his servant Tabi, , “go and roast” the passover for us upon an iron grate.”
The disciples having received such an order from their master, inquire not in what town or city they must prepare the passover, for that was always ate in Jerusalem; see De 16:5, where they were obliged, by the Jewish canon k, to lodge that night; though they might eat the unleavened bread, and keep the other days of the feast any where, and in every place l; but they inquire in what house he would have it got ready; for they might make use of any house, and the furniture of it, where they could find room, and conveniency, without any charge; for they did not let out their houses, or any of their rooms, or beds, in Jerusalem; but, at festivals, the owners of them gave the use of them freely to all that came m: and it is n observed among the wonders and miracles done at Jerusalem, that though there were such multitudes at their feasts, yet
“a man could never say to his friend, I have not found a fire to roast the passover lambs in Jerusalem, nor I have not found a bed to sleep on in Jerusalem, nor the place is too strait for me to lodge in, in Jerusalem.”
c Misn. Pesach. c. 1. sect, 1. Maimon. Chametz Umetzah, c. 2. sect. 3, 4. & 3. 11. d Maimon. Hilch. Korban Pesaeh. c. 1. sect. 1. 2. e Ib. sect. 4. Moses Kotsensis Mitavot Tora pr. affirm. 39. f Maimon. lb. sect. 3. g Pesachim, c. 5. sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10. h Ib. c. 8. 2. i Ib. c. 7. sect. 2. k T. Bab. Pesach. fol. 95. 2. & Gloss in ib. l Maimon. Hilch. Chametz Umetzah, c. 6. sect. 1. m T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 12. 1. Megilia, fol. 26. 1. & Gloss. in ib. Maimon Hilch. Beth Habbechira, c. 7. sect. 14. & Ceseph Misna in ib. n Abot R. Nathan, c. 35. Pirke Abot, c. 5. sect. 5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Treachery of Judas Foretold. |
| |
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? 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. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. 20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. 21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? 23 And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. 25 Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
We have here an account of Christ’s keeping the passover. Being made under the law, he submitted to all the ordinances of it, and to this among the rest; it was kept in remembrance of Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt, the birth-day of that people; it was a tradition of the Jews, that in the days of the Messiah they should be redeemed on the very day of their coming out of Egypt; and it was exactly fulfilled, for Christ died the day after the passover, in which day they began their march.
I. The time when Christ ate the passover, was the usual time appointed by God, and observed by the Jews (v. 17); the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, which that year happened on the fifth day of the week, which is our Thursday. Some have advanced a suggestion, that our Lord Jesus celebrated the passover at this time of day sooner than other people did; but the learned Dr. Whitby has largely disproved it.
II. The place where, was particularly appointed by himself to the disciples, upon their enquiry (v. 17); they asked, Where wilt thou that we prepare the passover? Perhaps Judas was one of those that asked this question (where he would eat the passover,) that he might know the better how to lay his train; but the rest of the disciples asked it as usual, that they might do their duty.
1. They took it for granted that their Master would eat the passover, though he was at this time persecuted by the chief priests, and his life sought; they knew that he would not be put by his duty, either by frightenings without or fears within. Those do not follow Christ’s example who make it an excuse for their not attending on the Lord’s supper, our gospel passover, that they have many troubles and many enemies, are full of care and fear; for, if so, they have the more need of that ordinance, to help to silence their fears, and comfort them under their troubles, to help them in forgiving their enemies, and casting all their cares on God.
2. They knew very well that there must be preparation made for it, and that it was their business, as his servants, to make preparation; Where wilt thou that we prepare? Note, Before solemn ordinances there must be solemn preparation.
3. They knew that he had no house of his own wherein to eat the passover; in this, as in other things, for our sakes he became poor. Among all Zion’s palaces there was none for Zion’s King; but his kingdom was not of this world. See John i. 11.
4. They would not pitch upon a place without direction from him, and from him they had direction; he sent them to such a man (v. 18), who probably was a friend and follower of his, and to his house he invited himself and his disciples.
(1.) Tell him, My time is at hand; he means the time of his death, elsewhere called his hour (Joh 8:20; Joh 13:1); the time, the hour, fixed in the counsel of God, which his heart was upon, and which he had so often spoken of. He knew when it was at hand, and was busy accordingly; we know not our time (Eccl. ix. 12), and therefore must never be off our watch; our time is always ready (John vii. 6), and therefore we must be always ready. Observe, Because his time was at hand, he would keep the passover Note, The consideration of the near approach of death should quicken us to a diligent improvement of all our opportunities for our souls. Is our time at hand, and an eternity just before us? Let us then keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity. Observe, When our Lord Jesus invited himself to this good man’s house, he sent him this intelligence, that his time was at hand. Note, Christ’s secret is with them that entertain him in their hearts. Compare Joh 14:21; Rev 3:20.
(2.) Tell him, I will keep the passover at thy house. This was an instance of his authority, as the Master, which it is likely this man acknowledged; he did not beg, but command, the use of his house for this purpose. Thus, when Christ by his Spirit comes into the heart, he demands admission, as one whose own the heart is and cannot be denied, and he gains admission as one who has all power in the heart and cannot be resisted; if he saith, “I will keep a feast in such a soul,” he will do it; for he works, and none can hinder; his people shall be willing, for he makes them so. I will keep the passover with my disciples. Note, Wherever Christ is welcome, he expects that his disciples should be welcome too. When we take God for our God, we take his people for our people.
III. The preparation was made by the disciples (v. 19); They did as Jesus had appointed. Note, Those who would have Christ’s presence with them in the gospel passover, must strictly observe his instructions, and do as he directs; They made ready the passover; they got the lamb killed in the court of the temple, got it roasted, the bitter herbs provided, bread and wine, the cloth laid, and every thing set in readiness for such a sacred solemn feast.
IV. They ate the passover according to the law (v. 20); He sat down, in the usual table-gesture, not lying on one side, for it was not easy to eat, nor possible to drink, in that posture, but sitting upright, though perhaps sitting low. It is the same word that is used for his posture at other meals, Mat 9:10; Luk 7:37; Mat 26:7. It was only the first passover in Egypt, as most think, that was eaten with their loins girded, shoes on their feet, and staff in their hand, though all that might be in a sitting posture. His sitting down, denotes the composedness of his mind, when he addressed himself to this solemnity; He sat down with the twelve, Judas not excepted. By the law, they were to take a lamb for a household (Exo 12:3; Exo 12:4), which were to be not less than ten, nor more than twenty; Christ’s disciples were his household. Note, They whom God has charged with families, must have their houses with them in serving the Lord.
V. We have here Christ’s discourse with his disciples at the passover-supper. The usual subject of discourse at that ordinance, was the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt (Exo 12:26; Exo 12:27); but the great Passover is now ready to be offered, and the discourse of that swallows up all talk of the other, (Jer 16:14; Jer 16:15). Here is,
1. The general notice Christ gives his disciples of the treachery that should be among them (v. 21); One of you shall betray me. Observe, (1.) Christ knew it. We know not what troubles will befal us, nor whence they will arise: but Christ knew all his, which, as it proves his omniscience, so it magnifies his love, that he knew all things that should befal him, and yet did not draw back. He foresaw the treachery and baseness of a disciple of his own, and yet went on; took care of those that were given him, though he knew there was a Judas among them; would pay the price of our redemption, though he foresaw some would deny the Lord that bought them; and shed his blood, though he knew it would be trodden under foot as an unholy thing. (2.) When there was occasion, he let those about him know it. He had often told them that the Son of man should be betrayed; now he tells them that one of them should do it, that when they saw it, they might not only be the less surprised, but have their faith in him confirmed, Joh 13:19; Joh 14:29.
2. The disciples’ feelings on this occasion, v. 22. How did they take it?
(1.) They were exceeding sorrowful. [1.] It troubled them much to hear that their Master should be betrayed. When Peter was first told of it, he said, Be it far from thee; and therefore it must needs be a great trouble to him and the rest of them, to hear that it was very near to him. [2.] It troubled them more to hear that one of them should do it. It would be a reproach to the fraternity, for an apostle to prove a traitor, and this grieved them; gracious souls grieve for the sins of others, especially of those that have made a more than ordinary profession of religion. 2 Cor. xi. 29. [3.] It troubled them most of all, that they were left at uncertainty which of them it was, and each of them was afraid for himself, lest, as Hazael speaks (2 Kings viii. 13), he was the dog that should do this great thing. Those that know the strength and subtlety of the tempter, and their own weakness and folly, cannot but be in pain for themselves, when they hear that the love of many will wax cold.
(2.) They began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?
[1.] They were not apt to suspect Judas. Though he was a thief, yet, it seems, he had carried it so plausibly, that those who were intimate with him, were not jealous of him: none of them so much as looked upon him, much less said, Lord, is it Judas? Note, It is possible for a hypocrite to go through the world, not only undiscovered, but unsuspected; like bad money so ingeniously counterfeited that nobody questions it.
[2.] They were apt to suspect themselves; Lord, is it I? Though they were not conscious to themselves of any inclination that way (no such thought had ever entered into their mind), yet they feared the worst, and asked Him who knows us better than we know ourselves, Lord, is it I? Note, It well becomes the disciples of Christ always to be jealous over themselves with a godly jealousy, especially in trying times. We know not how strongly we may be tempted, nor how far God may leave us to ourselves, and therefore have reason, not to be high-minded, but fear. It is observable that our Lord Jesus, just before he instituted the Lord’s supper, put his disciples upon this trial and suspicion of themselves, to teach us to examine and judge ourselves, and so to eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
3. Further information given them concerning this matter (Mat 26:23; Mat 26:24), where Christ tells them, (1.) That the traitor was a familiar friend; He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, that is, One of you that are now with me at the table. He mentions this, to make the treachery appear the more exceeding sinful. Note, External communion with Christ in holy ordinances is a great aggravation of our falseness to him. It is base ingratitude to dip with Christ in the dish, and yet betray him. (2.) That this was according to the scripture, which would take off the offence at it. Was Christ betrayed by a disciple? So it was written (Ps. lxi. 9); He that did eat bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me. The more we see of the fulfilling of the scripture in our troubles, the better we may bear them. (3.) That it would prove a very dear bargain to the traitor; Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. This he said, not only to awaken the conscience of Judas, and bring him to repent, and revoke his bargain, but for warning to all others to take heed of sinning like Judas; though God can serve his own purposes by the sins of men, that doth not make the sinner’s condition the less woeful; It had been good for that man, if he had not been born. Note, The ruin that attends those who betray Christ, is so great, that it were more eligible by far not be at all than to be thus miserable.
4. The conviction of Judas, v. 25. (1.) He asked, Is it I? to avoid coming under the suspicion of guilt by his silence. He knew very well that it was he, and yet wished to appear a stranger to such a plot. Note, Many whose consciences condemn them are very industrious to justify themselves before men, and put a good face on it, with, Lord, is it I? He could not but know that Christ knew, and yet trusted so much to his courtesy, because he had hitherto concealed it, that he had the impudence to challenge him to tell: or, perhaps, he was so much under the power of infidelity, that he imagined Christ did not know it, as those who said, The Lord shall not see (Ps. xciv. 7), and asked, Can he judge through the dark clouds? (2.) Christ soon answered this question; Thou hast said, that is, It is as thou hast said. This is not spoken out so plainly as Nathan’s Thou art the man; but it was enough to convict him, and, if his heart had not been wretchedly hardened, to have broken the neck of his plot, when he saw it discovered to his Master, and discovered by him. Note, They who are contriving to betray Christ, will, some time or other, betray themselves, and their own tongues will fall upon them.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
To eat the passover ( ). There were two feasts rolled into one, the passover feast and the feast of unleavened bread. Either name was employed. Here the passover meal is meant, though in Joh 18:28 it is probable that the passover feast is referred to as the passover meal (the last supper) had already been observed. There is a famous controversy on the apparent disagreement between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel on the date of this last passover meal. My view is that the five passages in John (John 13:1; John 13:27; John 18:28; John 19:14; John 19:31) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 26:17; Matt 26:20; Mark 14:12; Mark 14:17; Luke 22:7; Luke 22:14) that Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time about 6 P.M. beginning of 15 Nisan. The passover lamb was slain on the afternoon of 14 Nisan and the meal eaten at sunset the beginning of 15 Nisan. According to this view Jesus ate the passover meal at the regular time and died on the cross the afternoon of 15 Nisan. See my Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ, pp.279-284. The question of the disciples here assumes that they are to observe the regular passover meal. Note the deliberative subjunctive () after with . For the asyndeton see Robertson, Grammar, p. 935.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
17. Now on the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus. It is first inquired, Why does the day which preceded the sacrificing of the lamb receive the name of the day of unleavened bread? For the Law did not forbid the use of leaven till the lamb was eaten, (Exo 12:18.) But this difficulty may be speedily removed, for the phrase refers to the following day, as is sufficiently evident from Mark and Luke. Since, therefore, the day of killing and eating the passover was at hand, the disciples ask Christ where he wishes them to eat the passover.
But hence arises a more difficult question. How did Christ observe that ceremony on the day before the whole nation celebrated the public passover? For John plainly affirms that the day on which Christ was crucified was, among the Jews, the preparation, not of the Sabbath, but of the passover, (Joh 19:14😉 and that
they did not enter into the hall of judgment, lest they should be defiled, because next day they were to eat the passover, (Joh 18:28.)
I am aware that there are some who resort to evasions, which do not, however, give them any relief; for no sophistry can set aside the fact; that, on the day they crucified Christ, they did not keep the feast, (when it would not have been lawful to have any public executions) and that they had, at that the a solemn preparation, so that they ate the passover after that Christ had been buried.
It comes now to be inquired, Why did Christ anticipate? For it must not be supposed that, in this ceremony, he took any liberty which was at variance with the prescriptions of the Law. As to the notion entertained by some, that the Jews, through their eagerness to put Christ to death, delayed the passover, it is ably refuted by Bucer, and, indeed, falls to the ground by its own absurdity. I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ observed the day appointed by the Law, and that the Jews followed a custom which had been long in use. First, it is beyond a doubt that Christ was put to death on the day before the Sabbath; for he was hastily buried before sunset in a sepulcher which was at hand, (Joh 19:42,) because it was necessary to abstain from work after the commencement of the evening. Now it is universally admitted that, by an ancient custom, when the passover and other festivals happened on Friday, they were delayed till the following day, because the people would have reckoned it hard to abstain from work on two successive days. The Jews maintain that this law was laid down immediately after the return of the people from the Babylonish captivity, and that it was done by a revelation from heaven, that they may not be thought to have made any change, of their own accord, in the commandments of God.
Now if it was the custom, at that time, to join two festivals in one, (as the Jews themselves admit, and as their ancient writings prove,) it is a highly probable conjecture that Christ, who celebrated the passover on the day before the Sabbath, observed the day prescribed by the Law; for we know how careful he was not to depart from a single iota of the Law. Having determined to be subject to the Law, that he might deliver us from its yoke, he did not forget this subjection at his latest hour; and therefore he would rather have chosen to omit an outward ceremony, than to transgress the ordinance which God had appointed, and thus lay himself open to the slanders of wicked men. Even the Jews themselves unquestionably will not deny that, whenever the Sabbath immediately followed the passover, it was on one day, instead of both, that they abstained from work, and that this was enjoined by the Rabbins. Hence it follows that Christ, in departing from the ordinary custom, attempted nothing contrary to the Law.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
SECTION 65
JESUS CELEBRATES HIS LAST PASSOVER AND INSTITUTES THE LORDS SUPPER
(Parallels: Mar. 14:12-26; Luk. 22:7-39 a; Joh. 13:1 to Joh. 18:1)
TEXT: 26:1730
17 Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover? 18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. 19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
20 Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples; 21 and as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord? 23 And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. 25 And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi, He saith unto him, Thou hast said.
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. 29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.
30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
Why did the disciples ask Jesus where preparations for the Passover should be made?
b.
Why do you think Jesus had not previously announced the location? c. Does it not appear that His instructions, as to where this feast is to be celebrated, are deliberately devious? What possible purpose could there be for such ambiguousness, if His disciples needed to know? Or did they?
d.
Since Jesus was a wanted Man, do you think His disciples would have encountered difficulties with the authorities as they presented the lamb for slaughter by the priests?
e.
What is the householder, where the Passover is to be eaten, to understand by Jesus mysterious phrase, My time is at hand? Do you think His most intimate disciples understood it? If so, what would it mean to them? If not, how could Jesus expect a less intimate disciple to grasp it? If so, why say it?
f.
On what basis could Jesus count on the hosts consent?
g.
Why do you think Jesus waited until evening to go to the appointed house for the Passover meal?
h.
If Judas already knew he would betray Christ and Jesus Himself had clearly predicted that someone would do this, what possible purpose could be served by repeating this prediction at the Passover supper?
i.
If Jesus intention were to predict Judas betrayal, why did He continue to use such ambiguous language right up to the very departure of Judas? Should not prophecies be expressed in clear, literal language without all this beating around the bush?
j.
How do you think Judas reacted to Jesus blunt, even if somewhat ambiguous, prediction that one of the Twelve would betray Him? How would you have reacted, if you were Judas and knew what he knew?
k.
Jesus said, The Son of man goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man, if he had not been born. How does this affirmation relieve God of all responsibility for Judas actions and lay the blame squarely on the betrayer himself?
l.
How does the above-cited affirmation prove that Judas betrayal did not catch God unawares, but, rather, was actually foreseen and planned for by God, to carry forward His own program?
m.
How does this statement of Jesus demonstrate categorically that the widely-believed hope, that everyone shall finally be welcomed by God, is simply without any foundation in truth?
n.
Do you think that Jesus waited until the Passover supper was completed before instituting the Lords Supper, or that He simply transformed its various elements as they moved from one part of the Passover ritual to the next, thus giving new meaning to them? Why do you decide as you do?
o.
Is there any special symbolism involved in Jesus taking the Passover bread, blessing it and breaking it for distribution among the disciples? If so, what symbolism?
p.
How could Jesus say, This is my body, with reference to the bread, when, as a matter of fact, He was present bodily there before them?
q.
Now deal with the cup: how could its contents be called my blood, if His blood were yet in His veins?
r.
If Jesus is our Passover Lamb, why did He make no use of the literal lamb to say what He uses loaf and cup to teach?
s.
Why did He term it the blood of the covenant?
t.
Why would not Jesus drink that cup again until the day it could be drunk new with you in my Fathers Kingdom? In what sense would He do this? In this particular context, why is this promise such glorious news?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
The first day of Unleavened Bread arrived, on which it was necessary to sacrifice the Passover lambs. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, Go and get the Passover meal ready for us to eat.
Where do you wish us to go and do this? they asked.
Go into the city, He told them. Just after you enter the city, a certain man carrying an earthenware water-jug will be coming toward you. You follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, The Teacher sends word: My appointed time is near. At your house I shall celebrate the Passover. Where is my guest room where I am to eat the Passover with my disciples? He will then show you a large upstairs room all furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.
The two disciples did as Jesus had directed: they left and went into the city. They found things just as He had told them they would. So they prepared the Passover.
When the evening hour came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve and took His place at the table with them. They were reclining around Him at the table.
[At this point Luke records Jesus earnest desire to eat the Passover with the Apostles and the first cup. John records the washing of the disciples feet and the first intimations of the unclean betrayer. Perhaps Lukes narrative of the ambitious contention among the disciples about their relative personal importance should also be included here.]
As they were at table eating, when Jesus had spoken about the betrayer and His own direct connection with God, He became deeply agitated in spirit and exclaimed, I tell you the truth, one of you who is eating with me will betray me.
The disciples were deeply pained to hear this. One by one they began to ask Him, It is not I, is it, Lord?
The one who will betray me is right here at the table, eating supper out of the same dish with me! He answered. The Son of man is going to His destiny, as the counsel of God has determined for Him and as the Scriptures have written of Him. But what misery awaits His betrayer! It would have been better, if that man had never been born!
The disciples looked at one another, puzzled and uncertain as to whom He referred. They began to question each other about which of them was going to do this.
One of Jesus disciples, an especially close friend, was reclining at the table on Jesus right. So Simon Peter signaled to him: Ask Him whom He is talking about.
So that disciple leaned back close to Jesus and asked, Lord, who is it?
Jesus responded, It is the man to whom I give this bit of food after dipping it in the sauce.
So when he had dipped the morsel, He handed it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then, after the morsel, Satan took possession of him, and he spoke, Surely, it is not I, is it, Rabbi?
Jesus said to him, It is you, not I, who said what is the case. What you are going to do, make quick work of it!
Now, no one at the table guessed what He meant by this. Some surmised that, because Judas was in charge of the common fund, He was telling him, Buy what we need for the feast. Others thought He meant that Judas should donate something to the poor. So, after Judas accepted the morsel from Jesus, he left immediately. And it was night. . . .
After Judas departure, Jesus commented, Now is the Son of man glorified, and in Him God is glorified. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and do it at once.
[Here John records the new commandment.]
As the meal proceeded, Jesus picked up some unleavened bread. When He had blessed it by giving thanks, He broke it and shared it among the disciples, saying, Take this and eat it: it represents my body which is sacrificed for you. Do this to remember me. Similarly, after the meal was concluded, He lifted a cup of wine. When He had given thanks, He offered it to them, stating, Drink from it, all of you.
So they all drank from it. Then He went on.
This cup represents my blood which seals the new covenant with God, the blood which is to be shed on behalf of multitudes of people for the forgiveness of their sins, I can tell you for sure that I shall never drink this wine again, until the day comes when with new meaning I drink it with you in my Fathers Kingdom, the long-awaited Kingdom of God!
[Here John reports Jesus prediction that the disciples cannot follow Him where He must go. Peter promises total loyalty, but Jesus predicts his threefold denial. Luke also reports the predicted denials and the unexplained sword purchase (Luk. 22:31-38). Jesus presents His last discourse (John 14-17). Joh. 14:30 may mean that Jesus and the Twelve arose to leave, but lingered further in the Upper Room until Jesus completed His instruction and His intercessory prayer. Otherwise, what are the probabilities that Jesus did all the teaching of John 15-17 while walking through the streets of Jerusalem that night?]
When Jesus had spoken these words, they sang the Passover Psalms, Then they went out of the city across the Kedron Valley, as He was in the habit of doing, to the Mount of Olives.
SUMMARY
Jesus organized the Passover supper preparations in such a way as to leave Judas ignorant of the location until the last minute, and, in doing so, demonstrated His divine foresight. During the supper itself He clearly pointed out His betrayer, while contemporaneously giving him clear warning to back out. When, however, Judas left, Jesus gave new meaning to the bread and wine. It would now represent His own suffering and the ratification of the new covenant. After a long series of far-reaching instructions, He led His men out to His appointment with destiny.
NOTES
I. PREPARATIONS FOR THE LAST SUPPER (26:1719)
Mat. 26:17 Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to eat the passover? According to Luke, Jesus called Peter and John to begin these preparations. This question, then, reflects their obedient response to His order (Luk. 22:8).
Technically, the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread are two distinct festivals, the former being a one-night celebration on 14 Nisan and the latter a feast lasting one week from 1521 Nisan. (For their history and character, see Exo. 12:1-51; Exo. 13:3-10; Exo. 23:15; Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 9:1-14; Num. 28:16-25; Deu. 16:1-8; Eze. 45:21.) Two circumstances led people to call both feasts by the same name.
1.
Because the feast of unleavened bread immediately follows the Passover, at which only unleavened bread is also eaten, the day of the Passover itself could be considered the first day of unleavened bread, although technically, the longer feast began on the evening of 14 Nisan (= 15 Nisan).
2.
If Jews purified their houses of all leaven during the evening of 13 Nisan, or at the very latest, during the morning hours of 14 Nisan (Cf. Edersheim, Temple, 221), the 14th becomes virtually the first day of unleavened bread, even though, technically, it is Passover.
Even Josephus (Ant., XIV.2, 1; XVII, 9, 3; cf. XI, 4, 8) calls the feast of unleavened bread Passover, which would make the first day of unleavened bread coincide with the Passover (cf. Wars, V, 3, 1), precisely as does Matthew. Josephus does this fully aware that the official first day of unleavened bread occurs on the day following (Ant. 111, 10, 5). He even speaks of the feast of unleavened bread thus: We keep a feast for EIGHT days, which is called . . . of unleavened bread (Ant. II, 15, 1). This makes Passover virtually part of the feast of unleavened bread.
This popular, untechnical language explains why the first day of unleavened bread is clearly defined by Mark and Luke as the day . . . on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. Both authors use imperfect tense to point to Jewish customary practice. Further, all the Synoptics describe it as the day on which Jesus intended to eat the Passover. Again, since no oneneither the disciples nor the host-questions Jesus order to prepare the Passover meal at this particular time, one is lead to the natural conclusion that this moment is the regular time. No one asks, Why at this unusual time? but, simply, Where do you wish us to prepare? Therefore, the first day of unleavened bread, according to Matthew, is Thursday, Nisan 14. This is because the events narrated from the Passover supper until Jesus burial all occurred by normal Jewish reckoning, on Friday, Nisan 15, which began at sunset on the preceding day. (See Mar. 15:42; Luk. 23:54; Joh. 19:42; Luk. 23:56; Mat. 27:62; Mat. 28:1.)
IS MATTHEWS DATING WRONG?
Even a superficial reading of Matthews chronological notices concerning events in Jesus Last Week must lead to the conclusion that he reports a consistent, straightforward story: Jesus actually participated in the Passover supper at its normal time on the evening of Nisan 14, was captured and tried that night by Jewish authorities, and, next day (Nisan 15) was tried and crucified by the Romans. He was in the grave by Friday evening (= beginning of Nisan 16), all day Saturday (= Nisan 16) and arose Sunday morning, Nisan 17. With this accounting the other two Evangelists are in total agreement.
Some scholars attempt to prove that John contradicts (or silently corrects) this view. Then they seek alternative solutions that would leave the Synoptics a semblance of historical respectability, notwithstanding this apparently undeniable error. Accordingly, say the scholars, Jesus ordered a supper on Nisan 13 that in many respects resembled the Passover, but, of course, without the lamb. At this meal He instituted the Lords Supper. Consequently, then, being arrested that night, He died on the cross at the very hour the rest of the Jews were sacrificing their paschal lambs on Nisan 14. Thus, He fulfilled the Passover symbolism. But does this reconstruction fit the facts?
Several unprovable presuppositions are necessarily involved:
1.
The Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, gradually, but erroneously, came to identify what occurred in the Upper Room with the Passover itself, whereas John supposedly corrects this erroneous connection. Their motive, it is supposed, was to give emphasis to Jesus fulfillment of the Passover typology, by picturing Him as dying at the very hour the paschal lambs were slain.
a.
However, why did the Synoptics so obviously place Jesus death on the day AFTER what they mistakenly took for a Passover meal, instead of linking it with the Passover itself? They set Jesus death too late for synchronizing the supposed typological symbolism with His death. Either they inexplicably failed to see this contradiction or such symbolism was not part of their belief or purpose.
b.
Further, if the symbolic synchronization of Jesus death with the Passover slaying were truly Gods great design, surely the Gospel writers would have been alert and sympathetic to this nuance and as much as anyone else. Granted that they linked Christs death with the slaying of the Passover, how explain how these intelligent writers could blunder so obviously as to connect Jesus Last Supper with the actual Passover (i.e. 14 Nisan) in their histories, rather than with the night preceding His death, i.e. Nisan 13, as according to the theory, they should have done?
2.
It is also assumed that the Evangelists did not intend to describe a regular Passover meal. Contrarily, their every phrase clearly affirms the traditional preparation for and participation in a common Passover supper. Absent is any inkling of deviation from the standard celebration, either on the part of Jesus, His disciples or their host. Simply underline the word Passover in the following texts for complete conviction of this fact: Mat. 26:17-19; Mar. 14:12-16; Luk. 22:7-10; Luk. 22:13; Luk. 22:15.
3.
If Jesus were crucified at the very hour the Passover lambs were slain, how could we explain the multitude of Hebrews milling around the cross, when they should have been in the Temple most deeply involved in preparing their own lambs by sacrifice and in purchasing whatever was needed for their own celebration of the Passover that very evening? (Luk. 23:48 ff.; Mat. 27:55 f.; Mar. 15:40 f.).
4.
Affirmations in John are thought to militate against the version presented by the Synoptics:
a.
Joh. 13:1 supposedly dates the Last Supper as before the regular Passover time. John simply affirms, however, that Before the feast of Passover . . . Jesus loved His disciples. It does not date the supper, because John next documents how Jesus acted at the feast when the supper [finally] came (Joh. 13:2).
b.
Joh. 13:29 When Judas left the Last Supper, the others supposed he went to purchase items essential to the feast. Some usually assume that no shops would have been open at that late hour, were it the regular Passover night. Again, they assume for the feast means for the Passover proper next day.
(1)
However, for the feast means only for the total seven-day celebration, not strictly for the Passover. (See above.)
(2)
How would the high holiness of the Passover stop merchants from desecrating it more than the solemn sacredness of the Temple would stop the priests from desecrating it by their operating their animal market with its precincts?
(3)
Edersheim (Temple, 394; cf. his Life, II, 508 and Append. XVII, 786) citing the last two chapters of the Mishnah, notes that, even on the assumption that the Sabbath followed the Passovera belief essential to some interpretations of Joh. 19:31
Though servile work was forbidden on the first Paschal day, the preparation of all needful provision for the feast was allowed, and must have been the more necessary, as, on our supposition, it was followed by a Sabbath. Indeed, Talmudical law distinctly allowed the continuance of such preparation of provisions as had been commenced on the preparation day. . . . Even now Rabbinical ingenuity can find many a way of evading the rigour of the Sabbath-law,
Therefore, anyone who assumes that absolutely no stores would be open hence nothing could be purchased on Passover evening must be able to prove it, against the conclusion of the disciples who were well acquainted with what could or could not be done in Jerusalem on Passover night. (See Keil-Delitzsch, Pentateuch, II, 439.) This greater freedom explains the disciples reasoning. Edersheim (Life, II, 508) argues even further:
The mention of these two suggestions by the disciples seems almost necessarily to involve, that the writer of the Fourth Gospel had placed this meal in the Paschal Night. Had it been the evening before, no one could have imagined that Judas had gone out during the night to buy provisions, when there was the whole next day for it, nor would it have been likely that a man should on any ordinary day go at such an hour to seek out the poor. But in the Paschal Night, when the great Temple-gates were opened at midnight to begin early preparations for the offering of . . . the festive sacrifice, which was not voluntary but of due, and the remainder of which was afterwards eaten at a festive meal, such preparations would be quite natural. And equally so, that the poor who gathered around the Temple, might then seek to obtain the help of the charitable.
c.
Joh. 18:28 Because the Jews feared defilement that would prohibit them to eat the Passover, many assume John means the regular Passover meal had not yet been eaten. This assumption is fallacious because:
(1)
Passover does not necessarily nor exclusively refer to the Passover meal proper, since t pscha has the following well-documented meanings: (See also Josephus usages above.)
(a)
The Passover lamb itself (Mat. 26:17; Mat. 26:19 = Mar. 14:12; Mar. 14:14; Mar. 14:16; Luk. 22:7 f., Luk. 22:11; Luk. 22:13; Luk. 22:15)
(b)
All that concerns the meal itself (Mat. 26:19; Joh. 13:1 f.)
(c)
Passover day itself (Exo. 12:14; Exo. 12:17; Exo. 13:3; Lev. 23:5; Num. 28:16; Joh. 12:1)
(d)
The entire Feast of Unleavened Bread is loosely called the Passover (cf. Eze. 45:21; Luk. 2:41= Mar. 14:12) and Passover is termed first day of unleavened bread. The use of the expression the feast refers, not merely to the Passover Supper, but to all the festivities of the seven-day festival (Joh. 13:29; Joh. 19:14; Mat. 27:15 = Mar. 15:6). This use of the feast harmonizes with other examples. (Cf. Joh. 4:45 = Joh. 2:23; Tabernacles was a seven-day feast yet termed the feast. Cf. Joh. 7:2; Joh. 7:10 f., Joh. 17:14, John 17:37; Passover, Joh. 11:56; Joh. 12:12.)
(e)
The offerings of the Passover week. (See Edersheim cited below.)
So, the Pharisees were concerned about their ceremonial purity to eat other sacrificial meals of the Passover week. (Cf. Deu. 16:2 f.; 2Ch. 30:22.) So, John is in perfect harmony with prophetic precedent, since Ezekiel calls the Passover, a feast lasting seven days (Eze. 45:21, NIV, esp. in Heb. and LXX). Thus, John refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, treating it as virtually part of the Passover.
(2)
Edersheim (Temple, 218) reminds that Hebrews must bring TWO sacrifices for the Passover: the regular Passover lamb and a peace- or fellowship-offering. (Cf. Exo. 23:14 ff; Exo. 34:18 f.; Deu. 16:16 f.; Lev. 23:37 f.) Because this second offering was in addition to the Passover lamb, it could be offered anytime during the Passover week, but must be eaten only by persons who were ceremonially clean (Lev. 7:19-21). This explains the hypocritical preoccupation to remain outside Pilates defiling quarters. They could not have eaten their Passover peace-offerings, not the Passover lamb itself, in a state of defilement.
To this it might be objected, Was this fellowship offering ever called eating the Passover, as John terms it? Edersheim (op. cit., 251f.; also 395) proves that this Chagigah (festival offering) was specifically Paschal, citing a learned Jewish writer, Dr. Saalschutz, The whole feast and all its festive meals were designated as the Passover. See Deu. 16:2; comp. 2Ch. 30:24; 2Ch. 35:8-9; Sbach. 99b, Rosh ha Sh.5a, where it is expressly said, What is the meaning of the term Passover? (Answer) The peace-offerings of the Passover. Thus, it is this second Chagigah which the Jews were afraid they might be unable to eat, if they contracted defilement in the judgment hall of Pilate (Edersheim, op. cit., 218).
(3)
Further, because defilement from whatever cause always ceased at sundown with washing (Lev. 11:24 f., Lev. 11:28; Lev. 11:31; Lev. 15:1-27; Lev. 17:15, etc.), these Jews could never have feared defilement for the regular Passover Supper which is always eaten after sundown. Rather, they feared defilement that interfered with their sacrificing and eating the festive sacrifice (Chagigah) that very day, Nisan 15.
d.
Joh. 19:14 is rendered by some (cf. RSV), Preparation FOR the Passover which describes the day Jesus was tried, therefore, He partook of an early pseudo-Passover supper or did not respect the proper, normal date. But this unnecessarily forces John to contradict the Synoptics. However, this verse should be rendered (as NIV): It was the day of Preparation OF Passover week (paraskeu to pscha). That pscha here does not refer to the Passover meal, but to the entire week, is evident in that John already recorded that meal which the Synoptics unquestionably connected with eating the Passover (lamb).
e.
Joh. 19:31 is interpreted to mean that Jesus was crucified on the day used for preparation for the Passover which that year fell on the Sabbath making it a high day.
(1)
But Paraskeu actually says Friday as clearly as words can communicate. Not only does this term mean preparation in general, but, as a technical term for a day of the week, it means Friday (Rocci, 1422; Arndt-Gingrich, 627). Josephus (Ant., XVI, 6, 2) clearly documented the day before the Sabbath as the day of preparation in the time of Augustus, i.e. a custom in use long before Jesus death. John further defines the day meant, by his registering the Jews urgency to remove the bodies from the crosses, lest they remain there on the sabbath. Therefore, it was Friday. Their concern arose because that sabbath was a high day, but this does not prohibit its being Saturday. Again, John himself agrees that Jesus was in the tomb before sunset on Friday (Joh. 19:42). Further, this Saturday was called a high day, not because it was the first day of Passover, but the second, when the firstfruits offering was made. (Sabbath in Lev. 23:11 refers to the Passover rest, not Saturday. Cf. Jos. 5:11; see Keil-Delitzsch, Pentateuch II, 439441.) No evidence exists to show that, in the year Jesus died, there were any coincidence between (a) the first day of unleavened bread, and (b) the weekly Sabbath, which would make that Saturday a special Sabbath, or high day. Rather, that Saturday, Nisan 16 that year, was a special Sabbath, because the weekly Sabbath coincided with the firstfruits offering. (See Edersheim, Temple, 256ff.)
(2)
That Joseph of Arimathea could buy a linen shroud or that the women could prepare spices on Nisan 15 is not contrary to the hypothesis that the day was a festival involving Sabbath rest. (That Nisan 15 was Friday is proven by the womens resting next day, on the sabbath according to the commandment.) So they were able to function on the Passover without any consciousness of having violated its sanctity (Luk. 23:56). Obviously, the festival rest was not observed with the same rigor as normal Sabbath rest. Edersheim (Temple, 396) cites the Jerusalem Talmud that expressly declares it lawful on Sabbaths and feast-days to bring a coffin, graveclothes and even mourning flutesin short to attend to the offices for the deadjust as on ordinary days.
Therefore, is it not of utmost importance to seek out those facts that render possible a satisfying, yet uncontrived harmony between the Synoptics and John? Any supposed contradiction between them is the creature of intolerable ignorance and uncritical acceptance of pseudo-scholarly hypotheses that show a philosophical and moral bias toward driving a wedge between the Lords witness.
5.
The various movements of Jewish leaders and other people involved in Jesus arrest, trials and crucifixion all on the night of gravest importance and high solemnity is no argument against believing the Last Supper identical with the Passover. Their mad zeal to crush the Galilean Prophet would completely explain the actions of men who, in trying Him, did not hesitate to violate their own criminal code and tread on the principles of truth and righteousness.
6.
The silence of the Synoptics as to whether a lamb were present on the table can be no positive argument that there was none. Since they declaredly intend to describe a Passover meal, they may safely assume that an intelligent reader, who knows anything about a Passover, must also know that, by definition, such a supper must include the lamb that was sacrificed. (Cf. Mar. 14:12 = Luk. 22:7.)
f.
That Jesus observed the Passover regularly is further evidenced by the impossibility of His obtaining a lamb at any other time. Unless He made some exceptional omission of the lamb, of which deviation Scripture silence is complete, the presence of the Paschal lamb on the table meant that the meal was eaten on Nisan 14 at evening. In fact, the lamb, by definition, had to be sacrificed in the Temple and its blood applied to the altar by the priests. But as no Sadducean priest could be induced to comply with exceptional requests of that renegade Nazarene, no Paschal lamb would be sacrificed at any time other than the traditionally appropriate time. Hence, no Passover supper could be observed complete with lamb, until the correct day for slaying it.
7.
Johns Gospel shows incidental agreement with the Synoptics with reference to the release of Barabbas. They say that customarily a prisoner was to be released at the feast (Mat. 27:15 = Mar. 15:6) and John specifies at the Passover (Joh. 18:39). But this conversation between Pilate and the Jews occurred in the morning (Mat. 27:1; Mar. 15:1; Luk. 22:66; Luk. 23:1; Joh. 18:28; Joh. 19:14; cf. Mar. 15:25). Therefore, Jesus crucifixion and Barabbas release could never have occurred on 14 Nisan, since the forenoon hours of that day could not be termed the feast nor the Passover, except by a very loose use of language, because the feast does not begin until evening. Otherwise, Barabbas was officially released before the feast.
Consequently, Matthews dating is neither wrong nor contradictory to that of John. (See Seth Wilsons Was Jesus Crucified on Friday? in Butlers John II, 405ff.)
The passover
Mat. 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Teacher saith, My time is at hand; I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. Evidently Jesus intended to remain outside of Jerusalem (perhaps at Bethany?) while Passover preparations were going on. This accomplished several practical purposes: He risked no untimely clashes with the authorities and by His absence He did not distract worshipers from their own preparations. Go . . . to such a man (prs tn deina) is Matthews summary of how the disciples were to find the proper house. (See PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY for Mark and Lukes information.) It is extremely doubtful that Jesus mentioned the mans name, because Judas, by inquiry, could have learned his address and directed the police there before Jesus could finish teaching His men (Joh. 13:31 to Joh. 17:26). For security reasons, therefore, Jesus did not name the man and thus effectually hid the address from Judas. Consequently, He could enjoy that last, earnestly desired Passover meal in an undisturbed privacy with His disciples.
And say unto him. The identity of this completely unknown householder cannot be even partially discovered from what Jesus told His men to say. The Teacher saith. My time is at hand. For Jesus, this was to be a bitter-sweet hour with its positive side (cf. Joh. 2:4; Joh. 12:23; Joh. 13:1) and its painful crisis (Joh. 17:1). In His mind, this phrase meant, the schedule set by my Father for bringing to a successful conclusion my mission to redeem the world. Thus, Jesus proves how thoroughly conscious He was of the impending suffering (Joh. 7:6; Joh. 7:8; Joh. 7:30; Joh. 8:20). However, my time is at hand is not so precise an expression of time that one must assume He thought His suffering were so near that the Paschal meal must be observed ahead of its proper time.
I keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. No irregular schedule is implied here; rather the contrary, because, were this some abberration from the norm, a great deal more explanation would be required to convince an unsympathetic householder to cooperate with the exceptional nature of the request. Therefore, it is quite likely that Jesus had already established some previous understanding with this person. That Jesus could describe the needed space as my guest room (Mar. 14:14), and that it would be furnished and ready (Mar. 14:15), points even more certainly to a previous agreement. In fact, because thousands of families would be seeking just such a room in Jerusalem for observing the Passover, it is more in keeping with Jesus foresight to suppose that, to insure absolute tranquility for this Last Supper.
Speculation surrounding the mans identity ranges from people of means and potentially spacious houses like Nicodemus (Joh. 3:1 ff; Joh. 19:39) and Joseph of Arimathea (Mat. 27:57; Mat. 27:60; Luk. 23:50), to the capacious residence of Mary, John Marks mother (Act. 12:12). Was this the same Upper Room utilized by the Twelve and others for prayer and temporary lodging later (Act. 1:13 f.)? Nevertheless, the mans identity is as unknown to us as it was to Judas.
The hypothesis of a previous contact does not compromise Jesus supernatural discernment that guided His two messengers to meet the man bearing the water-pot at precisely the right moment (Mar. 14:13 ff. = Luk. 22:10 f.).
Mat. 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Peter and John entered Jerusalem, saw and followed the man indicated by Jesus. The gracious householder showed them spacious, second-floor room (Mar. 14:15 = Luk. 22:12). Did Jesus mean that it would be furnished with cushions to sit on and a low table, or that it had already been inspected for leaven? Perhaps the Apostles were to do this latter task before bringing the other elements for the feast such as water, basin and towel (Joh. 13:4 f.).
Merely because nothing in this entire account is ever said about a paschal lamb does not prove that there were none, or that Peter and John could not have procured it, or that Jesus deliberately celebrated the Passover one day earlier than the official date. That they could have procured the lamb is obvious for several reasons:
1.
The Law required that the lamb be selected on 10 Nisan (Exo. 12:3; Exo. 12:6). This means that the lambs all be set aside on Sunday, the day Jesus made His Messianic entry into Jerusalem. Would the necessity to select the lamb four days early be obviated in Jesus time by purchasing directly from Temple stock preselected and approved and kept among Temple sacrificial animals until purchased by Passover buyers? (Cf. Joh. 2:15.) However, it is morally unlikely that Jesus, who severely condemned the market in the Temple proper, would send His men there to take advantage of its convenience, unless, of course, that markets were by now relocated somewhere outside.
2.
That the two Apostles could have slain the lamb at the regular time is completely reasonable, because of the vast assembly of Hebrews who must crowd the slaying of their lambs into the afternoon hours of Nisan 14. Thousands of lambs were normally slain between three and five oclock (Wars, VI, 9, 3) by hundreds of priests with the assistance of Levites who skinned them (2Ch. 35:1-19). It is only remotely possible that one of the apostles would be recognized by any unfriendly priest assisting with the slaying. Contrarily, were there no friendly priest or Levite to whom they might turn?
Unless the owner of the Upper Room furnished everything, the two disciples would need to procure unleavened bread, wine, the bitter herbs and the fruit sauce and roast the lamb.
II. CELEBRATION OF THE LAST SUPPER (26:2025)
Mat. 26:20 Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples. The time is not Thursday evening, 14 Nisan, the beginning of Nisan 15. Presumably, Peter and Johns preparations occupied the better part of the day, so they did not rejoin the others until finished. Mark (Mar. 14:17) notes that Jesus did not even come near the Upper Room until after sunset, perhaps choosing to remain outside of Jerusalem all day for the above-mentioned practical considerations. At the Passover hour everyone else in and around Jerusalem would be deeply absorbed in his own participation in the Passover meal.
Matthew begins his narration where He was sitting at meat already. Before this, however, the disciples had bickered among themselves about their relative importance, perhaps as they took their places at the table (Luk. 22:24 f.; however, Lukes account may not be in strictly chronological order). Then, Jesus washed the disciples feet to teach them the meaning of true greatness of humility and service (Joh. 13:1-20).
He was sitting, rather, reclining (ankeito) Roman-style on a couch, or in the Oriental custom, on cushions arranged on the floor spoke-like around a low (U-shaped?) table in the center of which the food was placed. The original Passover institution required Israelites to eat the meal standing (Exo. 12:11). By custom, however, this detail had been abandoned to bring the feasts observance into line with Israels Egypt, their enjoyment of security in the Promised Land seemed to dictate that they partake of the meal comfortably sitting or reclining.
With the twelve disciples means in the absence of many others. The women who came with Him from Galilee (Mat. 27:55) and the other men were apparently scattered out over Jerusalem as guests in private homes or camped out on the hills surrounding the City.
The betrayer betrayed
Mat. 26:21 And as they were eating, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Into the phrase, as they were eating, Matthew compressed several incidents that occurred before this. (See PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY; cf. Joh. 13:1-20; Luk. 22:14-18; Luk. 22:24-30.)
Verily I say unto you gives this statement a deep solemnity that arises out of Jesus own deep, spiritual agitation (Joh. 13:21). In effect, then, Jesus faced a multifaceted crisis:
1.
He must warn the disciples that the impending shock was no surprise to Him, so that they would be the better braced for it when it came (Joh. 13:11; Joh. 13:19). Yet He must not tell them too much, lest they block Judas freedom to act and thus hinder Gods plan.
2.
Foreknowledge of Judas betrayal did not diminish the pain for Jesus. He is fully aware that one of His own men is under contract to betray Him. But He loves that man. Now He must put words to His mounting concern for him, revealing enough to be effective yet without saying too much.
3.
He must warn Judas that He knows all, giving him the opportunity to back out while there is time. Yet He knows that Scripture portrays the betrayer as His own intimate friend. So, He cannot force Judas to repent without violating his freedom of choice.
4.
Yet, in some way, He must create a spiritually receptive environment in which He could proceed with the last, vital instruction. Until Judas left, perhaps Jesus felt the oppressive spirit that evilly moved the man to act.
So, even if in His humility He washed Judas feet along with the others. He must now distinguish him from the rest. But this revelation is not easy for Jesus because of these pressures (Joh. 13:21).
One of you shall betray me. Study how Jesus treated Judas, and stand in awe of Gods respect for human freedom. The Lord did not expose him by name, violently attack Him or wither him with supernatural power. His arsenal of appeals was multiple and varied: He began by shocking him with the heinousness of what he was contemplating, a move that was calculated to catch Judas completely off-guard. Then He appealed to Judas sense of fellowship and love. Last, He appealed to Judas self-defensive instinct by a stern warning well calculated to stir his fear of God. Granted, none of these appeals turned the man around, but it was because Jesus completely respected his freedom of choice. In no case did Jesus coerce Judas even to save him.
What does this revelation say about Jesus? Even this prediction of the betrayal documents Jesus confidence in the resurrection. Of what value would it be for a permanently dead Christ to vindicate His true identity by revealing that He knew all along which course events would take? To what purpose assert that He was able to elude the cross, but consciously chose to die thereon, only to remain buried forever? Merely to glorify a one-way martyrdom? If He knew how to avoid death by eluding His betrayer, but was trapped in full knowledge, would He not be judged a fool, if there were no resurrection to free Him from deaths clutches? Thus, even though the announcement of the betrayal shook these men, it was nothing compared to the supreme horror of His crucifixion. But when these events had all become history and Jesus stood triumphant on lifes side of the grave, what faith-grounding energy they could derive from the knowledge that Jesus saw it all ahead of time and, despite, the temptations to avoid it, and at great risks to Himself, chose to go through it anyway!
What does this revelation mean to the Church? Just as Judas was at the table of Jesus Christ, so rogue disciples, in the role of believer, continue to appear at the Lords Table, so we must not be scandalized whenever and in whomever it appears.
Doubt mixed with hope
Mat. 26:22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began to say unto him every one, Is it I, Lord? Unable to believe their ears, these men are stunned, grieved. Their distressed reaction cries out the pain of their soul. They are sorrowful, not only because Jesus would be betrayed, but because one of them would do this unthinkable, cowardly deed. Regaining their voices, they formulate their hesitant, incredulous question in Greek form that expects a negative answer, It is not I, is it, Lord? They hope against hope for a negative answer. Since the Lord did not indicate when the betrayal would occur, they may not even have connected His words with that very night. (Contrast Mat. 26:31; Mat. 26:34 : this night.) Perhaps they believed that He referred to some distant future when they might possibly be tempted to betray Him. This explains why their reaction reflects a distressed self-doubt. Otherwise, they could have categorically denied any intention to be traitor to Him that very night, Instead, they began to say unto him every one, one after another (Mar. 14:19; heis kat heis).
1.
By this keen sensitivity and genuine self-doubt, they really proved their innocence and deep loyalty to Jesus. Pricked by memories of their lack of graciousness, their weakness of love, the extent of their selfishness and the reality of their doubts, their own conscience accused them. Painfully aware of the deceitfulness of their own hearts, they distrust themselves. But they prove their discipleship real as they bare their soul for His scrutiny and trust His testimony both to the fact just announced and to the identity of the guilty one. Better question ones own maturity and loyalty than doubt the Lords word!
2.
It is a mark of the beauty of their humility that each lays himself open to accusation. Not one of them questioned the loyalty of his fellow apostle, even by insinuation. Peter will break this rule later (Mat. 26:33). But for now the group is compact, each disciple searching his own heart.
Out of their self-examination arises two observations:
1.
It illustrates how thoroughly Judas had succeeded in hiding his plans and even his mentality from his brother-apostles. They saw nothing unusual in Judas character or talk that would arouse their suspicions. But Jesus read the secrets of Judas heart.
2.
But that the other disciples had discerned nothing unusual in Judas may actually depict to what extent they too shared his false, carnal Messianism. (See notes on Mat. 26:14; cf. Act. 1:6; Mat. 20:20 ff.; Luk. 22:24 ff.) This may simply indicate how close to disaster they too walked, were it not their greater confidence in Jesus!
Each dismayed, Is it I, Lord?, should have shaken Judas with powerful force, because the betrayer knew the innocence of each man. Finding himself in the moral minority could have persuaded him to repudiate his plan. But the innocence that drove the others to question Jesus does not motivate Judas, so he does not speak up at this point. He may be taken aback that Jesus has somehow uncovered his plot, but for reasons of his own, he cannot be greatly distressed that such a betrayal is really also a denial of his discipleship. (See on Mat. 26:14.)
Dare we ask ourselves with the same painful objectivity what kind of situation or temptations would ever undermine our resolve to serve Jesus, sufficiently to compromise our loyalty to Him? This humility is the only appropriate spirit with which to approach the Lords Supper. Hope as we might that we be equal to the severe testing of any future situation, no one can predict with certainty that he shall stand up under fire.
The outrageousness of treason
Mat. 26:23 And he answered and said, He that dipped his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. Rather than use knives and forks to eat, they followed Oriental manners by dipping their food from the common dish with their hands. Some believe the dish He refers to was the charoseth, a dish of thick spicy sweet-sour fruit sauce composed of figs, dates, raisins, vinegar and other ingredients.
It is evident, however, that Jesus has not yet directly answered anyones heart-wrenching question. Although he that dipped (ho embpsas) appears to point to one past act, as if Judas had just done so, the Lord refers, not to an act just completed, but to the fact without reference to time. (Time, per s, is not a necessary part of the sense of the aorist participle, the emphasis being primarily on the act itself, as opposed to a continuing process.) Because many were dipping in the bowl with Jesus during that meal, the dipping would not in itself unmask the traitor. However, probably not all of the Twelve would dip his hand with [Jesus] in the dish; as there might be several such dishes on the table for that many people. So, this revelation decidedly limits the list of potential betrayers to those dipping directly with Him, a fact that even more decisively highlights the closeness of this fellowship. Further, if, as Edersheim (Life, II, 493f.) pictures it, Judas is seated on Jesus left and John on His right, it would be an easy matter for Judas to dip his hand with [Jesus] in the dish. It also explains how Jesus could easily be talking directly with Judas without others hearing (Mat. 26:25) and then hand him the sop (Joh. 13:25 ff.).
Jesus purpose is not merely to point to the mechanics of eating nor specifically to the seating order at the table. Nor is this a whispered aside to John, as is His later remark (Joh. 13:26), because nothing is said here that would distinguish Judas from the others. Rather Jesus semi-enigmatic response intends to rouse the moral indignation and stir the conscience of everyone present. This response underscores the moral inconceivableness of the betrayers act. He is my table companion, sharing the deepest bonds of fellowship. The very instrument of betrayal, the hand of him who betrays me, was not only ready to grasp the opportunity to be false to Jesus, but even at that moment was on the table with Him (Luk. 22:21).
1.
He pushes every disciple to distrust his own heart and loyalty against the presumption that would cause the failure of nearly everyone that very night. Everyone of them, in a sense, dipped his hand . . . in the dish then deserted Him and fled (Mat. 26:56).
2.
He focuses on the underhandedness with which He, the Lord of glory, would be betrayed to suffer. To the Oriental, to eat together is to form a bond of fellowship for which those who thus participate should be willing to give their lives to protect that of the other covenanters. The ultimate treachery, as Jesus hammers it out, is that one would arise from this meal, in which he had shared from the identical dish, and go out to repudiate this covenant of friendship and be traitor to Him.
3.
Jesus also demonstrates how thoroughly He Himself is master of this crisis. He is not merely tightening the accusing circle around Judas. His purpose is didactic apologetics: I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he (Joh. 13:18 ff.).
4.
By appealing to the bond of fellowship to which Judas was theoretically committed by eating with Jesus, He intends to rouse Judas conscience to grasp the enormity of what he planned. Not only does He warn Iscariot that he is found out, He also longs to save him, if possible. For Judas to resist the pressure of his conscience will demonstrate how far he was beyond recall. In fact, his rationalizations (see on Mat. 26:14) probably justified his eating with his Victim, because, if we have rightly understood him, he did not admit that Jesus would be hurt in the final life-and-death crisis. Consequently, Judas could see no violation of hospitality, table fellowship or implied friendship. For Judas, therefore, Jesus was not Lord, nor His appeals or arguments final. Judas still reigned over his heart, not Jesus.
Mat. 26:24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born. All the disciples needed to come to terms with the true purpose behind Jesus suffering. Their mistaken sorrow and shock were caused by a wrong view of Gods program in which there was no place for a butchered Christ. So He must assure them of two things:
1.
The Son of man goeth to His death. This is a conscious decision to which no human being is forcing Him. They cannot snatch His life from Him. Rather, He actually intends to lay down His life (Joh. 10:17 f; Joh. 15:13; Rom. 5:7). By establishing these priorities, higher even than self-preservation itself, He explains both to Judas and the Eleven why He was making no move to stop this terrible deed.
2.
Even as it is written of him. His death would not spell the unaccountable victory of evil, but, rather, the marvelous success of Gods set purpose. Luke (Luk. 22:22) has: as it has been determined. This sovereign decree was well-documented ahead of time by the prophets. (Cf. Isaiah 53; Psalms 22; Dan. 9:26 f.; Zec. 12:10 ff; Zec. 13:1.) These the disciples were far too reluctant to believe. (Cf. Luk. 24:25 ff., Luk. 24:44 ff.; Joh. 20:9.) What is written of him must take place! (Cf. Luk. 22:37; Mat. 26:54; Mat. 26:56.) Our Savior, Gods Son, plants His feet firmly on the Old Testament as upon a firm foundation that can never be shaken. For Him, its message, which centers in His own Messiahship, is the revelation of Gods determination to carry out His program to head up everything in Christ. Jesus is unafraid to say this, even if those Old Testament prophecies predict His shame and suffering.
Woe unto that man . . . good were it for that man if he had not been born. This sentence sounds so drastic a pronouncement that Judas sin is often blown out of proportions, as if we common mortals could never match his consummate wickedness. But, elsewhere, Jesus endeavors, with the same vigorous language to impress upon every disciple that all arrogance, self-satisfaction and indifference toward others deserves the severest measures, even death (Mat. 18:5-9)! Nonexistence is to be preferred to sin! (Did this concept lurk in Judas mind to become the twisted autosuggestion that led to his suicide?) Further, if Judas be thought a common sinner, (see notes on Mat. 26:14), what does this ominous sentence of awful judgment awaiting him mean? Why was Judas sin so wrong? These questions find their solution in Jesus warning: Woe to that man. In this woe are two sentiments:
1.
FOREBODING JUDGMENT. While there is not even a breath of personal animosity in Jesus heart, His sorrowful outcry is founded on the curse that God must pronounce upon such a sinner.
a.
Judas sinned, because it is a crime to turn an innocent man over to the violence of his fiercest enemies from whom he could never receive just treatment and who are unquestionably determined to kill him. This is objectively wrong, whatever Judas subjective reasons might be (cf. Mat. 26:14).
b.
Further, it is objectively wrong because of the unspeakable wickedness of any disciple who dares believe himself wiser than the King Himself to organize and manipulate the program and progress of the Kingdom of God to achieve his own ends, whatever they be or whatever his supposed motive.
c.
Judas sinned, because Jesus here exposed and condemned Judas master plan to betray Him. This final warning pushes Judas to realize that, if the betrayal now goes through, he must now sin with full awareness. Now there can be no extenuation of guilt nor excuse. That Judas bull-headedly plunged on to this diabolical appointment must mean, then, that he considered his own rationale far more convincing that Christs attempted deterrent. This is the moral failure typical of most of us. Whether meant as open rebellion or not, Judas hereby defied the wisdom of Jesus Christ!
d.
Judas sin is objectively wrong, because he did it deliberately, regardless of the use God planned to make of his treachery. The man acted freely. If interviewed about his scheme before Jesus arrest, Judas would probably openly claim personal credit for the genius of his plot. Nowhere could he have discerned any compulsion from God. Thus, not even Judas would have blamed God for this severe condemnation, because he fully expected something quite different to develop from his plotting. (See on Mat. 27:3 ff.) Nor is his sin transformed by the fact that God knew he would do it and permitted him to go ahead. Gods secret purpose to utilize the mans falseness for His own glory does not change the objective nature of the crime freely chosen by Judas. That Jesus is destined by Divine sovereignty to be betrayed does not in any way minimize the responsibility of His betrayer nor justify him in any sense, merely, because he made Gods plan functionany more than Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar or Caiaphas could be excused for their hardness of heart. McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 226) rightly argued:
This shows that a man who, by a wicked act, brings about the purpose of God, bears the same guilt as though God had no purpose in it. It is his own act and motive for which he is judged, and not the results which God may have intended to bring out of his act,
2.
SADNESS MINGLED WITH LOVING MERCY. Jesus awareness that with His disciple, Judas, He shall fail, notwithstanding His last impassioned appeals to turn him, wrings from Him this wail of sorrow. If there is any anger in Jesus, it is not so much against Judas the man, as against the superstition, ignorance, selfishness and resultant evil in him that makes him impervious to the last heart-broken pleas to reconsider. Jesus sadness may also be wrung out of Him, because He foresees the unbearable self-reproach that would engulf Judas when he finally grasped the horrible impact of his deed.
The Lords dire warning actually treats Judas with merciful indulgence by effectually furnishing the traitor a motive, hence also a chance, to back out of the conspiracy. Let the Bible texts affirm that the Messiah must suffer and even suggest that a close friend betray Him (Psa. 41:9; Joh. 13:18), but let not dear Judas decide to be that man!
Good were it for that man if he had not been born. But Judas had been born, and his only escape now is by repentance. Nothing in sovereign predestination demanded that he be the apostate apostle. Gods program would have been fully carried out, even if Judas backed out! Prophecy only said, Someone. Let that turncoat be someone else! Jesus solemn sentence must silence everyone who would defend Judas. For, from this point on, to become Judas defense lawyer is to commit the same sin of which Iscariot himself was guilty: presumption to argue against the Lords judgment.
Jesus warning should have shaken the man to core, because He has just affirmed, I know whom I have chosen (Joh. 13:18). Although the Lord had not consciously selected Iscariot to groom him for treachery, at the same time He made no miscalculation in choosing him, as if He could somehow be taken unawares by Judas scheming.
On what basis could Jesus reasonably admonish the man, if He knew all along that this disciple would not submit to His will? Should not Jesus have simply given up without trying? This quandary faces every disciple who must feel the attraction of doubting whether a given reprobate can be brought to repentance. But that Jesus did admonish Judas urges us to go ahead and try. Further, He acted in harmony with God and His prophets who also mercifully attempted the impossible. (Study Gen. 4:6 f.; Pro. 29:1; Isa. 5:1-7; Isa. 6:9 f.; Eze. 3:18 ff; Eze. 18:30 ff; Eze. 33:1 ff. esp. Eze. 33:30-33; Luk. 13:6-9; Luk. 13:34 f.; Act. 20:25-31.) So, ironically, even from Jesus full consciousness of His own failure to persuade Judas, we may draw strength to labor incessantly to win others, despite the ever-increasing odds against their conversion. Even while using every appropriate persuasion to lead them to repent, we may not force their will. And, in the end, their loss will grieve us, but never so greatly as did the loss of Judas to our Lord. But He thoroughly understands what we undergo when we fail, because He has been there too on the night when Judas walked out eternally unpersuaded.
The betrayers bold bluff
Mat. 26:25 And Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi? He saith unto him, Thou hast said. While others questioned themselves, for Judas to remain silent would have been damning evidence of his complicity. Steeling himself, therefore, he risks exposure. However, if, as we believe (cf. notes on Mat. 26:14), Judas felt no malevolence toward Jesus personally, but, rather, a certain superiority, his question here is, from his point of view, neither shameful nor defiant mockery. Rather, as he reflects on Jesus revelation that a turncoat is in their midst, he may be thinking, You may call me a traitor today, but tomorrow you will thank me for what I am doing for you! Further, Judas curiosity may have been pricked by Jesus startling announcement, so he now tests the quantity and quality of His intelligence source to discover how much the Rabbi really knows. Or is He merely guessing? So, Judas question is not wholly false, even if it is a feint.
Is it I, Rabbi? While the others called Jesus, Lord, Judas, alone terms Him, Rabbi. Could he not bring himself to confess Jesus as Lord? Although to call Him their Teacher was a mark of high respect and true discipleship (Joh. 13:13 f.), how very far Teacher is from confessing Him Lord (Rom. 10:9; Rom. 14:9; 1Co. 12:3; Php. 2:11)! This title for Judas is really hypocritical, because in this very moment he was unwilling to let Jesus teach him! For him, Jesus was neither really Teacher nor Lord.
Not asked together with the pained questions of the others (Mat. 26:22), but after Jesus stern warnings (Mat. 26:23 f.), Judas bold question appears too isolated to have escaped the notice of everyone. But in the confusion of the general debate that arose, while others continued asking, Jesus continued to talk. (Cf. Joh. 13:22; Luk. 22:23.) Then, Judas, sensing that continued silence would be damning, speaks.
He saith unto him, Thou hast said. Did Jesus really say this, or is this merely Matthews summary of the incident related by Joh. 13:23-27, in the sense that Jesus answered Judas positively only by handing him the sop? (So, Godet, John, 255.) While this signal gesture was intelligible to John, unless Judas (and potentially others) heard the signal, It is he to whom I shall give this morsel, when I have dipped it (Joh. 13:26), it would not have been understood by Judas to whom the answer here in Matthew was supposedly given. Therefore, Jesus actually spoke to Judas to reveal His supernatural insight into Judas perfidy. Then later, when Peter gestured to John, He told John the signal, but to no one else.
Although some believe that Thou hast said means Yes in the same way the American expression, You said it! affirms so definitely, several factors must be taken into consideration:
1.
Jesus answer was not heard in the confusion. Everyone was talking, because they began to question one another which of them it was that would do this (Luk. 23:23). Otherwise, had these words been distinctly heard in that electric atmosphere, the other disciples could have pounced on the traitor instantly. Perhaps Jesus whispered His positive answer.
2.
Further, if they heard Him, they may not have believed the betrayal imminent, supposing that this revelation referred to some distant future, not to the impending crisis that very night. Because they could not believe that Jesus would die soon, despite His many warnings, they would even postpone the eventual betrayal to some hopefully distant day.
3.
However, it may be doubted whether this expression is so precise and definite as would appear from its use elsewhere (cf. Mat. 26:64). While not intentionally evasive, this response mildly demurs at the formulation of a statement made by the other party in the conversion. Hence, there is no need to suppose that, had anyone heard Jesus say this, he would instantly recognize Judas for the traitor. Rather, Jesus less-than-definite expression, The words are yours, might have even appeared to deny Judas treachery. Not I, but you, Judas, said it. Thus, whoever overheard it may have judged Jesus answer too vague for certainty. But a meaningful look of Jesus may convince Judas that He really does know about Judas plot, but will not tell, leaving Judas really free to decide his own course.
That this response of Jesus is not a precise answer exposing Judas is proven by the fact that no one correctly guessed why Jesus sent him out from the Passover (Joh. 13:28 f.). Because thou hast said is all that Matthew records, since he omitted the dipping of the sop, we must conclude that Jesus did, in a sense, commit Himself to a positive answer. Nonetheless, because of the foregoing considerations, it may be that this commitment is much clearer in light of subsequent events than it was when originally uttered by Jesus there at the table.
However, one disciple, John, did learn the traitors identity, not directly nor verbally, but by a gesture (Joh. 13:23 ff.). Jesus dipped a bit of bread into the sauce and handed it directly to Judas. Some see this gesture as treating Judas as an honored guest on the part of a careful host, a last, loving attempt of Jesus to break through Judas reserve of determination to carry out his plan. Jesus thus directed this last appeal to all that was possibly yet loyal in the man. Contemporaneously, by this exquisite gesture of oriental hospitality. He hid Judas even more effectively from all others. But Iscariots brazenness remained impenetrable, leading Jesus to hurry him out into the night to get on with his demoniacal business. Still, John could not react swiftly enough to block him, because the Lord deliberately hurried the man out before anyone really grasped what was happening. Perhaps John did not react in harmony with that explosive revelation, because he saw that it had been Jesus Himself who sent Judas beyond their reach.
The fact that John alone records the dipping of the sop specifically points to a Passover meal. In the Passover Haggadah the Passover supper is distinguished from all other meals in several ways including on all other nights we do not dip even once, but on this night twice (Barrett, John, 373; cf. Mishnah, Pesach, 10, 4). Further, that John alone records that when Judas left it was night (Joh. 13:30), points to the Passover meal, not some other, because, while any other supper meal could be eaten at any time from the later afternoon to early evening, the Passover-offering could be eaten only during that night and only until midnight (Zebahim 5.8 cited by Barrett, John, 374).
Judas, strongly urged by the authorities not to precipitate the crisis but to wait until after the feast in the absence of the multitude (cf. Luk. 22:6), now finds himself discovered. Compelled by his fear of retaliation from the others, if they learn he is to act this very night, and hurried out by Jesus, he dashed to his fellow plotters to obtain the necessary men to arrest Jesus. Thus, before they really wanted it, he hastened the crisis, making Jesus arrest and sufferings to occur during the Passover feast contrary to their earlier prudential judgment to wait. But this precipitation of the events began with Jesus quiet, skillful move that sent Judas forth to his ungodly, morally mad mission. This resulted in the fulfillment, right on schedule, not of the rulers careful plotting, but of Gods eternal plan. Even in this detail Jesus showed Himself Master of men and circumstances, and, bless God, fully Master of Himself!
III. INSTITUTION OF THE LORDS SUPPER (26:2630) THE BROKEN BREAD
Mat. 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed and brake it; and he gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. The expression, as they were eating, by its very ambiguity does not permit us to know at what stage in the Paschal Supper Jesus established His memorial. Edersheim (Life, II, 510) is undoubtedly right to affirm that it almost seems as if the Evangelists had intended, by their studied silence in regard to the Jewish Feast, to indicate that with this celebration and the new Institution the Jewish Passover had for ever ceased. Further, Matthew does not indicate when Judas went out. John, who alone reports his departure, does not document the Lords Supper. So, the final proof is lacking whether Judas partook of it.
However, it is more probable that Jesus did not confuse matters unnecessarily by mixing the exposure and expelling the betrayer with the vital instruction on the Lords Supper, since the disciples minds would have wavered back and forth from their consternation about betrayal to their concentration on Jesus death. But even this is not conclusive, since our own self-examination easily accomplishes this every Sunday as, at the Lords table, we contemplate our own betrayals of discipleship.
Again, because of the divided manuscript evidence in Luke, scholars are divided concerning the order of the Lords Supper institution: did the cup or bread come first, or were there two of the traditionally four Passover cups involved in Lukes account, one mentioned before the Lords Supper and one during its institution? Two answers are possible to deny the unwarranted assumption that Matthew and Mark are at insoluble variance with Luke:
1.
While the available manuscript evidence of Luke is definitely debatable, there are valid reasons for considering it virtually certain. (See the controversy even among textual editors in Textual Commentary, 173.) The longer form of Lukes text containing the cup-bread-cup order appears to enjoy the best manuscript documentation and best reasons for its inclusion.
2.
There are affinities between Lukes account and that of Paul (cf. Luk. 22:19 f. with 1Co. 11:23 ff.), which, according to some, argue that Paul and Luke share the same oral tradition. Nevertheless, Paul, when reporting the essential facts of the Suppers institution, always follows the order: eat/drink, bread/cup, and body/blood, never inverting either of these elements. (1Co. 10:16 f., 1Co. 10:21 does not relate the Passover event.) Therefore, if Luke intended to transcribe the tradition as he received it originally from Paul, the original autograph of Luke likely had the rendering given by the majority of textual witnesses; cup-bread-cup, the first of these cups being related to the Passover, not the Lords Supper.
Jesus took bread, not loaves of raised dough, but the flat, unleavened bread of the Passover meal. And blessed: to give God thanks for any food is virtually to bless it, since thanksgiving consecrates it (1Ti. 4:4 f.). In this sense, blessed (eulogsas) and gave thanks (eucharistsas Mat. 26:27; cf. Mat. 14:19 with Joh. 6:11; see Mar. 8:6-7) amount to the same thing, hence are practically synonymous. While undoubtedly Jesus always gave thanks for food, His doing so at the Passover was also traditional, not specifically commanded by God as an essential part of this ordinance. Why is it that He brake it? Although breaking for others after giving thanks was Jesus habit (cf. Luk. 24:30; Luk. 24:35), Edersheim (Temple, 241f.) considers the act a normal traditional part of the Paschal ceremony.
Take, eat; this is my body. Because it was bread that He broke and gave to them, calling it His body, He pointed to Himself as the Bread of life that would nourish them with eternal life. (See Joh. 6:53 ff.) Take, eat: this symbolic enactment teaches them that His life and its power over death must be appropriated by each disciple in a way so intimate and personal that it may be compared to the assimilation of food whereby its nutritional power becomes part of the disciple, giving him the power of Christs life. When taken literally, His language sounds like mystical nonsense. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jesus life, as this is expressed in His concrete historical incarnation is literally our only life. He really is the only source and sustainer of our physical and spiritual life (Col. 1:17; Col. 3:1 ff.; Php. 1:21; Joh. 1:4; Joh. 15:1-11). But this life is not merely our juridical acceptability with the Father, but our personal, conscious feeding our souls on Christ Himself.
The shared cup
Mat. 26:27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. Both Paul (1Co. 11:25; and Luk. 22:20) agree that the institution of the cup took place at the conclusion of the Passover meal. He gave thanks! Aside from the traditional blessing of the cup (cf. 1Co. 10:16), how could He sincerely feel like giving thanks to God for the somber meaning of that cup? He gave thanks, because He thoroughly believed in the final victory of the program of God whereby the Father would bring joy out of shame and death. He could be grateful, because He believed!
In English, Drink ye all of it sounds like Drain the cup, whereas Jesus said, All of you drink of it (pete ex auto pntes). This all of you stands in evident contrast to the general Roman Catholic practice of forbidding the cup of anyone but the priest, but Jesus emphasized the common sharing. All of you does not prove that Judas was present, as if the Twelve were addressed as a yet unbroken group, for Jesus could reasonably address this to those yet present and faithful to Him, though Judas be now gone.
Rather, His point is another: unity in the fellowship. As each disciple drinks from the cup he shares not only with every other who does so, but he thereby commits himself to that fellowship. He drinks together with others in the memory of Jesus redemptive death, thus committing himself to share in the meaning of that sacrifice. This also involves our moral obligation to the rest of the family. More than any other, this must be thought of as the cup of brotherhood. Western Christians must recapture what it means for people to drink together, notwithstanding the ungodly abuses of this concept among drunkards. Drinking together constitutes a pledge of mutual loyalty. This simple act practically expresses an oath of allegiance to live in fellowship with, to defend and die for those with whom one drinks. In the Lords Supper it is with Jesus Christ and His Church that we drink! There can be no higher allegiance, no more precious fellowship, no more sacred commitment than this. As we eat and drink, honoring the memory of Christs redemptive sacrifice, we commit ourselves to hate sin and abandon it to express our loyalty to Him. We solemnly consecrate ourselves to the promotion and progress of all that is precious to Him.
In this light, then, there could be little doubt that He also drank from this same cup. Lukes citation, I shall never eat . . . drink . . . until the Kingdom of God comes (Luk. 22:15; Luk. 22:18) is to be interpreted in harmony with Mat. 26:29, i.e. after this sad celebration of the Last Passover, He would no longer participate in the Passover itself until its full significance were realized in the Kingdom. (See on Mat. 26:29.)
Mat. 26:28 For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. After the disciples all drank from the cup (Mar. 14:23 f.), Jesus furnished this threefold explanation of the cups symbolism:
1.
This is . . . blood of the covenant. This entire sentence is a highly compressed reference to the long-awaited arrival of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31 ff.) which God, through the Messiah (Isa. 42:6; Isa. 53:12 death) would make with His people and whereby He would completely forgive their sins, absorbing its penalty Himself. But even such a covenant could not be ratified without the shedding of blood, as was the ancient Mosaic pact (Exo. 24:8). Because ancient covenants were considered a life-and-death matter, they were sealed with blood, because the life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). Failure to keep them spelled the forfeiture of the transgressors life. So, a covenant with a holy God that offers forgiveness of sins and fellowship could not be established without the judicially appropriate substitionary shedding of blood for the sinner (Heb. 9:22). So, by saying, the blood of the covenant (t hama . . . ts diathkes). Jesus associated this new symbolism with the ancient words of Exo. 24:8 pronounced at Sinai. By using this Mosaic terminology, Jesus deliberately interprets the Mosaic institution as having no meaning except as it finds its perfect final fulfillment in Him. God has never had but one grand scheme of redemption, even though this was expressed in various covenantal relationships. The initial phases only prepared for the final, perfect covenant established by Jesus Christ.
Further, because the Sinaitic pact united the many tribes of Israel into a holy nation, a people for Gods own possession with a mission to accomplish in world history (Exo. 18:4 f.), it would appear that Jesus intends that the new covenant create the new Israel of God from all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues to have the same privilege and purpose. (Cf. 1Pe. 2:9 f.; Gal. 6:16). In this light, then, the Lords Supper becomes a celebration of this new brotherhood, for it points not merely to a personal covenant with God, but also to the covenantal creation of the new people of God. (See Pauls use of this concept: 1Co. 10:17 and perhaps Mat. 11:29.)
2.
This is my blood . . . which is poured out. His expression excludes natural death and points to the blood-shedding of a sacrificial victim. So saying, Jesus depicts Himself as Gods Lamb. (Cf. Joh. 1:29; Heb. 7:27.) His self-giving institutes a new relationship which makes the Mosaic covenant obsolete.
3.
For many unto remission of sins. His death as a substitutionary sacrifice was the purpose of His coming (Mat. 20:28). This phrase gives the clearest sense to the suffering of Jesus. His mission is neither simply to teach pious moral doctrine or eschatological visions, nor suffer martyrdom as a supreme model of fidelity to duty. His purpose was to establish a covenant between man and God in the only way it could be: by blood which achieves remission of sins. By beginning with elements of the Passover, He drew attention to the exodus, no more from the slavery of Egypt, but from slavery to sin. Consequently, participation in the Supper must involve our renewal of our own individual total self-commitment to Gods program to eliminate all sin in ourselves and in others, for in Jesus death Gods passionate hatred for sin and His passionate love for sinners meet.
For many may be an intentional echo of Isa. 53:11 f. that pictures the Messiahs vicarious death in the place of sinners. He did not give His one innocent life for the forgiveness of but one personone life for one life, but for all humanity (Joh. 12:32; cf. Pauls argument, Rom. 5:12-20).
Unto remission of sins does not connect forgiveness with participation in the Lords Supper, as if He said, Drink . . . for the remission of sins, so that whoever missed the Supper for whatever reason could not be forgiven until the next occasion for partaking. Rather, the participation is a celebration of a past fact and renews our confidence that we have been forgiven by His blood. All the disciples who partook that night were already clean before Jesus instituted this Supper (Joh. 13:10 f; Joh. 15:3).
Whereas Luke (Luk. 22:20) and Paul (1Co. 11:25) both say, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, the difference is slight, because the real basis of the covenant whereby remission of sins is to be enjoyed, is still Jesus blood. He simply makes the cup stand for this fundamental principle. When one partakes of the cup, he thereby recognizes and respects the covenant and its provisions.
The translation of the RSV, This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood (Luk. 22:20) wrongly applies the pouring to the cup, rather than the blood. Even though both cup and blood are neuter gender in Greek, the appositional phrase, which is poured out, is located after my blood, and should be considered to modify it. A much better rendering would be: this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.
Take, eat. This is my body . . . Drink ye all of it. This is my blood. Literal identification of Jesus body and blood with the bread and cup is excluded by the fact that Jesus stood there before them, holding these symbols in His hands. Instead, although this eating and drinking are physical acts, they are nonetheless truly spiritual, because they are based on a belief and a participation in something that cannot be seen or felt. While not literally a partaking of flesh and blood, the acts are nonetheless real, precisely because spiritual. What is eaten and drunk is still bread and wine to the sense, but to the soul, it is undoubted spiritual participation in all the reality of Jesus Christ.
This bread is my body . . . this cup is my blood. By beginning with elements common to the Passover meal, Jesus pointed to Himself as the true fulfillment of the Paschal symbolism. It is remarkable that He made no direct allusion to the lamb. This is because the lamb is to serve no purpose in the new Supper He instituted, for He Himself is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (Joh. 1:29). Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed (1Co. 5:7). By His choice, therefore, we partake only of bread and wine that symbolize to us what the Paschal lamb represented to the Israelites, Gods Lamb. Thus, because our Lord Himself fulfilled this symbolic feast in all of the rich meaning God intended Israel to grasp as they observed it, our participation in the Lords Supper fulfills all the symbolic significance of the ancient Passover. So, if Israels eating of the Paschal lamb signified their identification with all that the lamb represented and accomplished spiritually for them, our eating of the bread and drinking the wine signifies our loyal fellowship in all that Jesus accomplished through His flesh and blood too.
What bread and wine mean to the body, participation in the body and blood of the Lord must mean to our inner life. By sharing in the broken bread and the cup of blessing, we really, even if symbolically, participate in the vibrant life that was His (1Co. 10:16 f.). Therefore, if not to partake of bread and wine, common staples of the Middle-East diet, is to starve, not to absorb Jesus soul-sustaining love, message and attitudes cannot keep us alive spiritually either. We must have Him to live! For the disciples, the net result of this revelation should be high encouragement to believe that Jesus approaching suffering was no freak disaster inflicted by brutal men or unforeseen by God. So far from frustrating His purpose, His death would actually accomplish His true mission. While His suffering would seem to be the entirely unjustified sin of resentful, ungodly men, it would be Jesus freely chosen way of ratifying a covenant which would redeem men from sin and initiate a new age. Rather than shiver in horror of His shameful death, He glorified His suffering by elevating it to a central place in the institutional life of His people. In this covenantal ritual of eating and drinking, they thereby bind themselves once again to keep the covenant, by their own self-giving life like that of Jesus. Thus, the Supper is more than a supremely appropriate commemoration of the great redemptive act He would accomplish on the cross. It is also a continuing reminder of His love and of our dependence upon Him. Thus, the appropriate attitude for partaking of the Supper must be aroused, not so much by an intellectual acceptance of a past fact alone, as by hearty gratitude toward the generosity of Him who did it: Christs love compels us . . . (2Co. 5:14; Gal. 2:20).
SPECIAL STUDY
GOD IN THE BOX: ROMAN CATHOLIC TRANSUBSTANTIATION
The miracle of transubstantiation whereby the bread and wine undergo a change into the literal body and blood of Christ is a tradition that entered ecclesiastical life around 380 A.D. and became dogma of the faith in 1215. (Cf. Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, chaps. VIII-X for the history of its development.) In 1226 Catholics began to kneel in the presence of the host, the consecrated wafer of the Eucharist kept in a special box called the Tabernacle, because it was thought to become the presence of Christ in their midst. Continuing idolatry must be the judgment on this worship of the consecrated Host, whereby, according to Pope Paul VI (Encyclica Mysterium fidei, No. 35).
Not only during the offering of the sacrifice and the carrying out of the Sacrament, but also afterwards, while the Eucharist is kept in the churches and chapels, Christ is truly the Emmanuel, that is God with us. Since he is with us day and night, he dwells with us full of grace and truth. . . . The Catholic Church professes this service of worship of the Eucharistic Sacrament not only during the Mass, but also beyond its celebration, by saving the consecrated bread with the maximum diligence, presenting it to the solemn veneration of the faithful Christians, carrying it in procession for the rejoicing of the Christian multitude.
In theory, these views of traditional Romanism (as opposed to modern controversial Catholic theology) are based on Jesus words, This is my body . . . this is my blood. By these words Catholics officially believe that Jesus Himself worked, hence, sanctioned the miraculous transformation. That such a position cannot be sustained from the words of Christ, is proven by the following considerations:
1.
After having said, This is my body . . . this is my blood, He referred to the bread as simply bread (1Co. 11:26) and to the cup as the fruit of the vine, (Mat. 26:29; Mar. 14:25), although both, according to the theory, should have already changed into flesh and blood. Paul, too, speaks of the supposedly transformed bread as simply bread two more times and calls the wine simply the cup three times, after citing the supposedly miraculously transforming words of Jesus (1Co. 11:27 ff.). Now, if neither Jesus nor Paul could discern any change in these elements, there must have not been any.
2.
In the Catholic mass there is no transformation that can be discerned by the impartial observer, not even by the Pope himself (Osservatore Romano for 12 July 1968, p. 2). The wafer remains what it is and the wine drunk by the priest is still wine. But calling it a spiritual miracle is inexcusable, because, when Jesus worked real miracles, tangibly verifiable changes occurred. When He turned water into wine, for example, everyone could tell that it was no longer water, but the finest wine (Joh. 2:9 f.). There was no need for ecclesiastical hocus-pocus nor mental gymnastics nor autosuggestion to cause people to think a material change had taken place when it had not.
3.
Such a miraculous transformation, in the nature of the case, is not to be expected from Christ. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass, established by the Council of Trent (canons 1 and 2 of the Decretal on the Eucharist, and sanctioned by Vatican II), affirms that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice that is offered to take away the sins of the living and dead in Christ. (Cf. Documents of the Second Vatican Council, The Liturgy, 9,354, 1288.) Thus, every mass becomes a repeated renewal of Christs sacrifice, which shifts the believers attention from the proclamation of Jesus death and resurrection to the pretended mystery of the mutation of the Eucharists elements (ibid., 286, 12521254). But Christs sacrifice was a unique event: once for ever (Rom. 6:9 f.; Heb. 7:25-27; Heb. 9:22; Heb. 9:25-28; Heb. 10:12-14)! Thus, the supposed necessity of other, repeated, complementary sacrifices of Christs body and blood to remove sins, is diametrically opposed to the Bible doctrine of the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christs original sacrifice (Heb. 10:17 f).
4.
Such an interpretation turns into wooden, prosaic literalism the figurative language of a Teacher whose lessons abound in vivid pictures. This is my body . . . my blood are simply metaphors, that vivid figure of speech which creates a relationship between two objects by calling one of them by a term that denotes the characteristic of the other, thus, rhetorically transferring the characteristic of the one to the other so as to suggest some analogy between them. While many illustrations could be cited (like Joh. 10:7; Joh. 10:9; Joh. 14:6; Joh. 15:1; 1Co. 3:16; 1Co. 6:19; Mat. 5:13-16; Jer. 2:13; Gen. 49:9; Gen. 49:14; Gen. 49:21-22; Gen. 49:27), the one which shows most convincingly that Jesus language is to be understood figuratively is Lukes version: This cup . . . is the new covenant in my blood (Luk. 22:20; cf. 1Co. 11:25). By affirming that this cup is a new covenant, He brings together two otherwise unconnected ideas to make His point. This combination is simply another metaphor of the same type utilized by Matthew and Marks version: This is my body . . . my blood. At any rate, Jesus warned against turning metaphor into literalism with precise reference to His body and His blood, when He cautioned so emphatically, The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life (Joh. 6:63).
5.
The disciples themselves understood Jesus to speak symbolically, because no serious objection arose from these Hebrews against the cannibalism implicitly involved in eating real human flesh and drinking real human blood, for to them this could not be less than totally abhorrent. (Contrast the unbelievers, who, like the traditional, Catholic position, thought Jesus spoke literally, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Joh. 6:52!)
6.
Possibly utilizing the ancient formula of Exo. 12:11, at the Passover Hebrews spoke of the Passover lamb thus: This is the body of the lamb which our fathers ate in Egypt. (Cf. Edersheim, Temple, 232, who documents a similar statement in Mishnah, Pes. 10.3.) Although it was decidedly not the same lamb, each Passover lamb stood for and memorialized it.
7.
We present a photograph to our acquaintances, saying, This is my mother, knowing that they cannot misunderstand us to affirm that the picture itself is our parent. Similarly, while alive in their presence, Jesus could even more easily hand them bread and wine and affirm, This is my body . . . my blood, without their misunderstanding Him to mean that some metaphysical change had come over those common elements which even their own senses could not discern, but which Jesus continued to speak of as bread and wine.
Therefore, certain knowledge not only of this text but also of Jesus general use of metaphors and of His style of Kingdom, as well as genuine spiritual discernment are all needed to restrain us from repeating the sacramental substitution of the Churchs Dark Ages. Those men, unwilling to believe that the spiritual influence of the Supper lay in mere symbols, attributed to the figure all the powerful virtue of the things symbolized, transferring the power of salvation from Jesus the Savior to the sacrifice of the mass. But salvation cannot be acquired through the magical properties of earthly elements, but by a new standing before God, a position determined by personal faith in Jesus Christ and attained by His self-sacrifice once for all forever. The certainty that we truly and properly partake of Christ is not made possible as the result of an ecclesiastical magic trick accomplished only by authorized personnel (which also shifts attention to a special priestly hierarchy). Rather, this certainly is obtained by the willing confession that all who eat His flesh and drink His blood in the sense that HE expressed, that is, by absorbing His words, His Spirit and His life, have His life abiding in them (Joh. 6:53-63).
This supposed miraculous change only occurs because of the sacerdotal authority of the priest, hence the attention of the participant is directed toward celebrating the glories of the sacerdotal hierarchy while he concentrates on that imaginary miracle performed thereby. Thus, the conscience of the worshipper is gradually drawn away from the Gospel emphasis to an obsession with human mediation and a god in the box, the consecrated wafer in the Tabernacle. The most negative effect of this belief is its emphasis on a daily miracle created by priestly power, while the power of a Christ risen to die no more is relegated to an event in the dusty past, remembered once a year at Easter.
That not even all Catholicism is agreed on the transubstantiation dogma is evidenced in all the Catholic theologians struggles to oppose it especially before Vatican II. The Popes stern rebukes of Catholics who oppose the doctrine, measure the magnitude of lower-level dissent among progressive Catholics (Encyclica Mysterium fidei, No. 4). Let us hope that the new Catholic theology be able to free itself from the official dogmatics of the past which had nothing to do with the Bible and were useless to strengthen the faith, and that they might proceed more swiftly and freely on the road toward a return to Gods Word.
Undaunted confidence in the future
Mat. 26:29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. This declaration stands in astonishing contrast (lgo d humn) with what, to His disciples, must have seemed inexplicable pessimism. But Jesus intends to infuse into them His own unshakable confidence in His final victory. After picturing His death in the symbols of bread and wine, He now lays before them a stunning challenge: I have just talked about my death, but now I promise you that the long-awaited Messianic Kingdom of God will have come on earth before another Passover rolls around! Dare you believe that? This year I drink this cup of Passover wine, part of the old, Mosaic economy. Next year we will drink together in an entirely new way in the Kingdom!
His words, however, must not be mistaken for a somber refusal to drink, as if, by a supposed Nazarite vow of abstinence, He were consecrating Himself for the imminent sacrifice of His life. Nor is there any indication that He were fasting, rather than participating in the Passover. I shall not drink henceforth implies, without distinctly affirming it, I have drunk up to now. It is henceforth, i.e. from now on, that the change would come. Otherwise, the disciples must wonder why, of all people, Jesus alone did not participate with them in the Passover in the normal way. But of His non-participation there is not a word in Scripture. That He neither ate nor drank is a hypothesis contrary to His strong desire expressly declared (Luk. 22:15 f.). In fact, henceforth (aprti) . . . until (hos) means that He ate the Passover meal, but this is absolutely the last time to do so under these conditions. From this Passover feast forward, He would not participate in such a festal celebration until it could be shared with His people in a new way in the Kingdom. Thus, He says farewell to the Passover, and consequently, to the Mosaic dispensation founded on it. Edersheim (Temple, 233f. with bracketed additions from his Life, II, 492) described the Passover as specially suited to typify Christ and end with His death:
It was a sacrifice, and yet quite out of the order of all Levitical sacrifices [and distinct from all others]. For it had been instituted and observed before Levitical sacrifices existed; before the Law was given; nay, before the Covenant was ratified by blood (Exodus 24). In a sense, it may be said to have been the cause and foundation of all the later sacrifices of the Law, and of the Covenant itself. Lastly, it belonged neither to one nor to another class of sacrifices; it was neither exactly a sin-offering nor a peace-offering, but combined them both. And yet in many respects it quite differed from them. In short, just as the priesthood of Christ was a real Old Testament priesthood, yet not after the order of Aaron, but after the earlier, prophetic, and royal order of Melchisedek, so the sacrifice of Christ was a real Old Testament sacrifice, yet not after the order of the Levitical sacrifices, but after that of the earlier prophetic Passover sacrifice by which Israel had become a royal nation.
No wonder, then, that Jesus should make a definite break with the Mosaic institution once the completion of His own mission should bring it to final fulfillment. It is this finality that causes this particular Passover to be called the Last Supper. But the break is not so radical that He must be seen as refusing to participate in the last Hebrew Passover. This fruit of the vine means this Passover wine (Luk. 22:15-18), because not only had Jesus given the wine new meaning, but now categorically affirms that He would nevermore taste it until this new meaning had been realized in the Kingdom. On the question of wine versus grape juice, see below. He cannot mean He would nevermore eat common meals with the disciples before the Ascension (Act. 10:41). The fact remains, therefore, that for Jesus the cup still contained simple fruit of the vine, not blood, even after referring to it as His blood.
Until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. Did Jesus see the Last Supper as a prelude to the great Messianic or to the Lords Supper, or both?
1.
THE MESSIANIC BANQUET (Mat. 8:11 f. = Luk. 13:28 f.; Luk. 14:15 ff.). That day in my Fathers kingdom has an eschatological ring to it, since that day commonly points to some great day of the Lord. (Cf. Isa. 10:20; Isa. 10:27; Hos. 1:5; Amo. 9:11; Zec. 12:3-11; Zec. 13:2; Zec. 13:4; Zec. 14:4-21; Mat. 24:36; Luk. 21:34; 1Th. 5:4; cf. 1Th. 5:2; 2Th. 1:10; 2Ti. 1:18; 2Ti. 4:8.) Further, even in Matthew the Christian era is distinguished from the eternal Kingdom (Mat. 5:10?; Mat. 13:43; Mat. 25:34 as opposed to Mat. 3:2; Mat. 4:17; Mat. 10:7; Mat. 12:28; Mat. 13:11; Mat. 13:19; Mat. 13:24; Mat. 13:31; Mat. 13:33; Mat. 13:44-47; Mat. 16:19; Mat. 16:28, etc.). And in that realm of eternity we may anticipate full, uninterrupted, unsullied, restored fellowship with the Lord. (Cf. 1Th. 4:17; ?Rev. 3:20; Rev. 7:14 ff; Rev. 19:9; Rev. 2:1-4.) Not only does this supper commemorate; it anticipates, looking backward to the cross and forward to our future celestial fellowship. Our present, earthly communion is not mortal like our bodies, but has a joyous, eternal future. We celebrate in hope of that grand reunion with our Lord in His eternal Kingdom.
a.
But the true eschatological fellowship with the Lord cannot exclude all fellowship with Jesus now or be thought to be postponed until the Lords Supper find its heavenly fulfillment in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. This view discounts the high importance Jesus attributes to His real fellowship with His Church on earth now (cf. Mat. 18:20).
b.
In my Fathers kingdom may rightly be thought parallel to Lukes expressions until the Kingdom of God comes . . . until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God (Luk. 22:16; Luk. 22:18). These are similar in thought to Luk. 9:27 (= Mat. 16:28 = Mar. 9:1) and refer, not to the post-judgment eschatological Kingdom, but to the Kingdom of Christ which began during the lifetime of the early Christians, i.e. the Church.
c. Certainly, we proclaim His death until He comes again (1Co. 11:26), but to suppose that His promise refers exclusively to the great Marriage Supper of the Lamb, is to minimize the present participations of all living saints in the Kingdom.
2.
THE LORDS SUPPER. Jesus officiated at the last Passover supper ever truly celebrated according to Gods will. That very next day at three oclock in the afternoon,at the hour of prayer and the offering of the last daily sacrifice (cf. Act. 3:1; Mar. 15:34)the Passover was fulfilled when the Lamb of God was sacrificed (1Co. 5:7; Col. 2:14). The following Pentecost the Kingdom of God was fully inaugurated on earth and the new covenant executed. From that date on, Jesus began to have communion with His disciples in the kingdom as it is now in anticipation of the Messianic banquet in the eternal Kingdom. So, even now the eschatological fellowship with the Lord may be ours in foretaste and promise at His Table. Even now, therefore, Jesus communes with His own (Mat. 18:20; 1Co. 10:16). He is not content to be without us at His table where He is Master Host and our Fellow-banqueter. So, there is joyful optimism in His promise: I shall . . . drink it new with you in the Kingdom. How this prospect inspires us to be at that Table, meeting Him there as the Church to have fellowship with Him!
FRUIT OF THE VINE: WINE OR GRAPE JUICE?
Would first-century Hebrews ask this question? Or, is not this a query typical of a sympathy for a dogmatic position of total abstinence, rather than temperance, toward all forms of alcohol? (See authors study: Should Jesus Drink Wine? my vol. II, 526ff.)
The question of wine versus grape juice does not revolve around whether grape juice were available in the spring at Passover time or whether Jews anciently used hermetic sealing methods to prevent it from spoiling or fermenting. The question is what they did, when both wine and grape juice were available.
Fruit of the vine, as Jewish sources reveal, is but a beautiful paraphrase for wine. (See Davis, Dictionary of the Bible, 818ff., where Mishnah Berakoth Mat. 6:1 is cited; I.S.B.E. art. Wine, 3086ff.; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, V, art. onos, 163.167; also I, art. gnema ts amplou, 684.) According to the Mishnah, Pes. 2, fermented drinks of grain that had had contact with the yeast of bread were forbidden. Edersheim (Life II, 485) contends that the wine was the ordinary one of the country, only red; it was mixed with water, generally in the proportion of one part to two of water. To this he appends the footnote: The contention that it was un-fermented wine is not worth serious discussion, although in modern practice (for reasons needless to mention) its use is allowed. He cites the Jerusalem Pes 37c as indicating that each of the Paschal cups generally contained only about 94 grams (or 3 ounces) of watered-down wine. By the end of the traditional four cups, if the wine were diluted to half water, the most alcohol anyone would have drunk would be about 1112% of a third of a liter (or about 1.4 oz.)! Today, normal Jewish table-wine straight from Israel, labelled Pure for Passover (kosher Ie Pesach), Isaiah 11-12% alcohol.
The argument that the fermentation of wine, as opposed to unfermented grape juice, would disqualify wine for use on the Passover Supper, assumes that Jewish authorities considered such fermentation to be equal to leaven or yeast. This view, however, does not accurately reflect Biblical logic. The fermentation of wine was obviously not considered leaven, since wine could be poured out as a libation on Gods altar during a burnt-offering (Exo. 29:39-41; Lev. 23:13; Num. 28:7 f.), whereas no leaven must ever appear there (Exo. 23:18; Lev. 2:11). (Only when offerings were to be eaten by priests, Lev. 7:12 ff., or by other, Lev. 7:16 ff., could yeast be allowed with offerings. Cf. Lev. 23:15-20.)
McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 658) decides,
The word wine is nowhere used in any of the accounts of the Lords Supper, the terms cup and fruit of the vine being employed in its stead. Those, therefore, who choose to use unfermented grape juice are guilty of no irregularity.
However, such brethren usually also insist that the original type of Passover bread, i.e. Mazzoth, or unleavened bread, be restored in the Churchs faith and practice. Would not consistency demand that they respect Jewish Passover practice in their fruit of the vine as much as their unleavened bread?
Then, are those who use grape juice sinning, because they do not use Passover wine along with Mazzoth (unleavend bread)? While the unfermented grape juice they drink in the Lords Supper is probably not what Jesus distributed among His disciples, nevertheless, their conscience is weak due to their acceptance of total abstinence taught for Christian doctrine (despite Col. 2:16-23). So, they cannot change until they be convinced of the Scriptural validity of using wine. To change without conviction is sin (Rom. 14:23). However, until they are persuaded, they must never condemn their brothers who use wine with understanding and Scriptural bases. Similarly, their wine-drinking brothers must not sneer at their abstaining brothers conscience against using wine.
THE LORDS SUPPER, A PERMANENT INSTITUTION
That Jesus intended a perpetual observance of His Supper is suggested in His plea: Do this in remembrance of me (Luk. 22:19; 1Co. 11:24 f.). Paul points to the only appropriate termination of our participation: until He comes (1Co. 11:26). Although no specific rule determines the frequency of participation, our love for Jesus is our highest norm. Subsequent early Christian practice illustrates their understanding that Jesus expected His Church to observe it perpetually (Act. 2:42; ?Act. 2:46; Act. 20:7; cf. Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, Chap. VI).
Logically, by virtue of our continued need to feast our souls on Christ Himself, the Lords Supper would be a continuous reminder of our dependence on Him and on the terms of the covenant under which our forgiveness is secured. The question, How often should we observe the Supper? is thus already answered in a non-legalistic way: No more than you need to be reminded of the cost of your salvation, no oftener than you need to express your dependence on Jesus, no more regularly than you need forgiveness for your violation of the covenantal terms of your relationship with God, no oftener than you need to meditate on your responsibility to the whole Body of Christ, the many for whom this sacrifice was made. Therefore, observance of the Supper every week could never be too often for those who are spiritually sensitive to these needs. From this point of view, then, every Lords Day may not be enough, but merely the accepted minimum for the local assembly of Christians to be able to get together.
Edersheim (Life, II, 491) saw the symmetry in Jesus ministry as it relates to us:
With a sacrament did Jesus begin His Ministry: it was that of separation and consecration in Baptism. With a second Sacrament did He close His Ministry: it was that of gathering together and fellowship in the Lords Supper. Both were into His Death: yet not as something that had power over Him, but as a death that has been followed by the Resurrection. For, if in Baptism we are buried with Him, we also rise with Him; and if in the Holy Supper we remember His Death, it is as that of Him Who is risen againand if we show forth that Death, it is until He come again. And so this Supper, also, points forward to the Great Supper at the final consummation of His Kingdom.
Gods son defies with a triumphant song
Mat. 26:30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Much preceded this hymn that Matthew does not report. John penned the fuller account of those last, precious hours with the Eleven during which Jesus unburdened His heart in a discourse that forms the content of Joh. 13:31 to Joh. 17:26. Although Joh. 14:30 reports Jesus order, Rise, let us leave here, they may have stood up to go, but lingered further in the Upper Room, while Jesus continued His instruction, His intercessory prayer, and finally this hymn.
As a translation of Matthews words, the phrase, when they had sung a hymn, is misleading, because it points to a single hymn, whereas Matthew wrote humnsantes: they having sung hymns or having hymned. This aorist participle does not specify how many hymns they sang or for how long, but merely views the action as an event. It was traditional to bring the Passover celebration to a close by singing Psalms 115-118. It is not necessary to treat these Psalms together as a bloc to be sung together as one hymn. So, they could well have sung these Psalms. Edersheim (Life, II, 488) affirmed that, during the actual slaying of the Paschal lambs in the Temple, while the blood was being applied to the altar, the Levites led the worshipers in chanting Psalms 113-118. This repeated Psalm-singing vividly brought the slaying of the Paschal lamb right into the Passover supper itself. Sometimes also Psalms 120-137 were sung at the close of the feast (Edersheim, Temple, 244, note 2).
The original precept required, Not one of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning (Exo. 12:22). That they went out, rather than remain in the Upper Room, cannot be cited as proof that Jesus did not participate in the truly Last Passover. The Jews in Palestine distinguished the characteristics of the original Egyptian Passover from those of the permanent institution, since some of the former were considered out of harmony with the true meaning of the Passover, once Israel arrived in the Promised Land. These features were not to be considered an essential part of the ordinance itself. So, as was His custom (Luk. 22:39) every night during His Last Week (Luk. 21:37), He left the City.
They went out to the mount of Olives. Leaving the Upper Room they started walking through the dark streets of the City toward their specific destination, the Garden of Gethsemane. This ended Jesus privacy, because He was aware that Judas knew His habits well enough to predict He might eventually make this move (Joh. 18:2).
So, after singing of the victory over sin and death, of zeal for the glory of God, of the joy of service to God, of the goodness of God in all of its manifestations, Jesus went out to Gethsemane and the cross, SINGING, Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever (Psa. 118:29). How could He SING with the doom of divine judgment and human infamy awaiting Him just a few hours later? In those Psalms He sang of consecration to God, calm truthfulness and fortitude in trial. Because Jesus SANG, we too can sing, even if our eyes and hours are now washed with tears.
For a rich spiritual experience, why not turn to Psalms 113-118 and read those great songs aloud, as if you stood with Jesus and the Eleven in the Upper Room, knowing what He knew about the coming cross? What thoughts go through your mind as you contemplate the cross through the language of those Psalms? What must Jesus have thought about? How do these Psalms calm your troubled soul, as you too say, The LORD is my strength and MY SONG? Or, The LORD is with me: I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? (Cf. Heb. 13:6.)
FACT QUESTIONS
1.
List five ways the Scriptures use the term Passover.
2.
During the Last Week did Jesus eat the regular passover meal at the normal time? What texts show whether He did or not?
3.
On what day of the week did Jesus eat the passover meal? Prove your answer.
4.
Identify the first day of unleavened bread: Why call it by this title? What was its function? What two major preparations did the Jews usually make on this day? How do the Synoptics distinguish this day from the day of preparation?
5.
What does Jesus mean by the expression, My time is at hand?
6.
What specific arrangements would normally be needed to be made for Jesus and His men to eat the Passover?
7.
Name the two disciples commissioned to make the arrangements.
8.
How were these two disciples instructed to proceed from the moment they left Jesus to make the arrangements?
9.
Why did Jesus eat the Passover in the evening?
10.
When, precisely, did Jesus point out Judas as the traitor? List the various events at the supper in order to show this moment.
11.
How did Jesus indicate the traitor to be Judas?
12.
How did Jesus hide the betrayers identity until his departure from the Upper Room?
13.
How did the other Apostles react to Jesus announcement that one of them would betray Him?
14.
Quote the text wherein Jesus absolved God of all responsibility for Judas betrayal and contemporaneously established Judas complete freedom of choice.
15.
At what general point in the Passover did Jesus institute the Lords Supper?
16.
What was the original symbolism of the unleavened bread in the Passover?
17.
Name the figure of speech involved in the expression: This is my body . . . my blood, then explain how Jesus words are to be understood.
18.
Explain how blood and covenants are connected in the plan of God, then apply this understanding to Jesus use of these terms in connection with forgiveness of sins.
19.
Jesus said, I shall . . . drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. To what astounding reality does this promise point?
20.
Were Jesus and His disciples accustomed to sing a hymn in connection with Passover? If so, what hymn was it?
21.
What does the Lords Supper say to the participant about the purpose of Jesus death?
22.
Show the meaning(s) of the Lords Supper by quoting passages of Scripture that state or imply its meaning.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(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. Johns narrative, as has been said, leaves prim 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Thursday of Passion Week.
121. TWO DISCIPLES SENT TO PREPARE THE PASSOVER, Mat 26:17-19 .
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.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where do you wish that we make ready for you to eat the Passover?” ’
While initially the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread had been two separate feasts combined, they had gradually come to be seen as one and the whole could therefore be described as ‘the Passover’ or as ‘the Feast of Unleavened Bread’. This is witnessed to both in the Old Testament (see 2Ch 30:13-15) and in Josephus. Thus the first day of unleavened bread here refers to the day when the leaven was removed from houses preparatory to the Passover itself.
All the disciples would be in expectancy of celebrating the Passover within the city walls, which was obligatory. Thus it was quite natural for them to ask Jesus where preparations had to be made. They could not observe it in Bethany. Matthew mentions no names for he does not want to clutter up his account with detail. His eye is on the main events. The partaking in the Passover lamb was a central aspect of Passover, and thus it can be described in terms of ‘eating the Passover’. Like all Jews Jesus and His disciples observed the Passover annually, and like large numbers of Galileans they would go to Jerusalem for the purpose (see Joh 2:13; Joh 2:23; Joh 6:4; Joh 12:1).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jesus’ Time Is At Hand And The Last Fatal Passover Is Made Ready By The Disciples (26:17-19).
This subsection had begun with, ‘after two days the Passover comes and the Son of Man is to be delivered up to be crucified’ (Mat 26:2). Now Jesus sends His disciples to prepare for that Passover, with the indication that ‘His time is at hand’. And with that in view they make ready the Passover. Even they must have realised by now that this was to be no ordinary Passover.
That Jesus’ time was at hand comes out throughout this subsection. In Mat 26:2 it is ‘after two days’. In Mat 26:12 the woman’s act has ‘prepared Him for His burial’. In Mat 26:16 Judas is seeking to betray Him ‘from that time’. Now Jesus declares that ‘His time is at hand’. Thus this subsection is preparing the way for what follows. His hour has come (Joh 13:1). Interestingly the only suggestion of delay has been at the hands of the chief priests and elders in Mat 26:5. But Judas’ betrayal has brought even them into line. All is going forward as determined. But that still does not excuse those involved. It was not their intention to accomplish God’s will by means of the cross. Their motives were very much different. It was happening in spite of their evil motives, not because of them. (We can compare how God used Assyria as the rod of His anger, but still punished her because of her excesses – Isa 10:5 onwards).
Analysis.
a
b And He said, “Go into the city to such a man, and say to him (Mat 26:18 a).
c “The Teacher says, “My time is at hand.” (Mat 26:18 b).
b “I keep the Passover at your house with My disciples” (Mat 26:18 c).
a And the disciples did as Jesus appointed them, and they made ready the Passover (Mat 26:19).
Note that in ‘a’ the disciples ask when they should make ready the Passover, and in the parallel they make ready the Passover. In ‘b’ Jesus sends them to a man in the city, and in the parallel they are to tell him that Jesus will keep the Passover at his house in the city with His disciples (Passover had to be observed within the city boundaries). Centrally in ‘c’ we learn that His time is at hand.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
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?
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 14 th
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 15 th
, 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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 26:17-18. Now, the first day of the feast, &c. We learn from Mar 14:12 and Luk 22:7 that this was done the very day on which the paschal lamb was killed; for, though the feast of unleavened bread did not, properly speaking, begin till the 15th of the first month, as it is termedin Lev 23:5-6. Num 28:16-17.) yet they began to abstain from leavened bread on the evening of the 14th day. The passover [ ] means the paschal lamb; for the word is often used to denote the lamb itself, which was killed and eaten during the celebration of this solemnity. Into the city, means Jerusalem by way of eminence. The phrase to such a man, implies that Jesus named the person to whom they were sent; though the Evangelists have not thought it of importance to mention his name. See Mar 14:13 and Luk 22:10. My time is at hand, seems to mean, “the time of my sufferings and death;” for every body knew that the time of eating the passover was near. I will keep the passover, means, “I will eat the paschal lamb.” It was customary for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to prepare rooms, tables, &c. for strangers to celebrate this festival; at which time, as appears by the Talmudists, the houses were not to be let, but were of common right for any one to eat the passover in. The Jews used to prepare the place in which they intended to eat the passover the night before, as they do at present. Their chief solicitude in their preparation consists in searching after any leavened bread, and their scrupulousness goes so far as to pick up the least crumb they can find. After this they make the beds or couches on which they recline, furnish their room, and dress their meat. See the notes onExod. 12: and Calmet’s Dictionary under the word Passover.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 26:17 . .] on the first day of the unleavened bread, i.e . on the first day of the feast , the day on which the unleavened bread ( ) is eaten. The day referred to is the 14th of Nisan (Thursday, according to the synoptic evangelists), which, following the loose popular mode of reckoning, to which Josephus (Antt. ii. 15. 1) also conforms when he represents the feast as extending over eight days, was counted as one of the feast days, although the Passover did not begin till the evening of that day, Num 28:16 ; Exo 12:18 (Otto, Spicil. p. 70).
] in what house.
] “Jesus est ut paterfamilias inter discipulorum familiam,” Bengel.
] the Passover lamb, to be eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. See on Joh 18:28 . This lamb was slain (not by the priests) in the fore-court of the temple in the afternoon before sunset ( , see Hupfeld, de primitiva festor. ap. Hebr. ratione, I. p. 12).
It may seem strange that, at a season when the presence of such multitudes of strangers in the city was certain to create a scarcity of accommodation (Joseph. Bell. ii. 1. 3, vi. 9. 3; Antt. xvii. 9. 3), Jesus should have put off His arrangements for celebrating the feast till now. This, however, may be accounted for by the fact that He must have had certain friends in the town, such as the one referred to in Mat 26:18 , whose houses were so much at His disposal at all times that it was unnecessary to make any earlier preparation.
REMARK.
According to John’s account, the last meal of which Jesus partook was not that of the Passover; while His death is represented as having taken place on the day before the feast, the day which Matthew here calls the . On this great and irreconcilable discrepancy, which even the most recent exhaustive inquiry, viz. that of Wieseler ( Beitr . p. 230 ff.), has failed to dispose of, see on Joh 18:28 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
THIRD SECTION
CHRIST THE PASCHAL LAMB, AND THE LORDS SUPPER
26:1730
(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, ], 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, ] 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, , 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, ] hand with me in the dish, the same shall [will] betray me. The Son of man goeth [departeth, ] 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, ], 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, , ],38 which is shed for many for the remission [for remission, ] 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 Fathers 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 () 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 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, Bumlein, 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 oclock 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 Lords 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 mitgezhlt ist, nach der populr ungenauen Weise, in welcher auch Josephus, Antiq. ii. 15, 1, Acht Festtage zhlt. 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 Saviours 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 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 oclock. 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 (Jd. Alterthmer): 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; .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 Lords 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 inthe 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 Fathers 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 Lords 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 Lords Supper itself as well known. We find it hinted at in the , 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 Lords 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 , 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 Matthews 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 (), 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 Fathers 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 (comp. Luk 22:19 and 1Co 11:24, , : Fregit post Benedictionem; contra transubstantiationem. Accident enim, quale post benedictionem panem esse ajunt, non potest frangi. From the giving of thanks () and blessing () the offering, the holy communion is called . see the patristic passages in Suicers Thesaurus, sub verbo.P. S.]
Take, eat; this is My body.This, in the neuter (). Therefore not directly . 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 Christs 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 ( ), absolutely exclude the sense that the wine in the cup was actually itself the New Covenant. For all these reasons, 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 to the mystical body of Christ, the Church (a view held by colampadius, 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 , 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 as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The 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 (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 ( or ) 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 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 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 Christs 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 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 (), but, as colampadius 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 reprsentat 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: (not: ) , 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 hc 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 Saviours 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 Lords 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: ), in living and saving faith (comp. Joh 6:51 sqq.); so that this symbolical participation of the elements represents a spiritual, living, and vivifying 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 , 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 as a symbolical copula. But doctrine goes back to exegesis. The 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 (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 vitiset postea non quidquam gustat illa nocte.
[Drink all ye of itThe , 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: , according to the report of St Paul. Bengel: Si una species sufficeret, bibendum esset potius. Etiam 1Co 15:25 Quoties: in poculi mentione ponitur. Locuta sic est Scriptura, prvidens (Gal 3:8) quid Roma esset factura. Still stronger, Calvin: Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent, de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satan 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 Lords Supper. Baptism represents fellowship with the whole Christ, fellowship with both His death and His resurrection; yet with special emphasis upon the death. The Lords 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. , 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 peoplethe essential germ of the sacramental participation of the blood in the Lords 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 ( )Present tense. [Compare the addition to in Luke: , which is being given.] The sacrifice is already virtually accomplished, and the future act realized in the Lords 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 , Luke . While these prepositions are often interchanged, is the more definite expression. Matthew, however, adds the explanation, ; 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 henceforthMeyer 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 ), 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 Lords 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, .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 Bhr, 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 Lords expression cuts off such abstract discussions; it says only that it were better that he, , 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 Martensens 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 Zwinglis 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 Zwinglis interpretation: this signifies (dies bedeutet). And in this church-historical connection Zwinglis 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 , 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 Lords 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: Fr und wider Kahnis, Leipzig, 1863, p. 28, thus speaks of his friends recent change on this particular point: In the doctrine of the Lords 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: . 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 Lords 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, Knigsberg, 1863, vol ii. p. 638, expresses his satisfaction that Kahnis has come over, as he thinks, to his own view on the Lords Supper, which he formerly opposed, but censures him rather severely for not giving him credit for indebtedness to his (Ebrards) 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 Lords Supper is: 1. A commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christs 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 clestis in the Eucharist. Its religious and moral influence. Either salvation or condemnation.
8. For the history of the rites of the Lords Supper, see the works on church history and archology. 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 Lords 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 Melanchthons 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 institutionhowever desirable this may bebut 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Christs 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 countryTo 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 Lords Supper.The doctrine of the Lords Supper.Judas Iscariot the New Testament Achitophel.Ahlfeld: The Lords 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 Lords table.Kern: The holy Supper a Supper of the New Covenant.A. Knapp: The Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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.[. Dr. Lange renders and : 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 according to A., L., M., etc [Also Cod. Sinait.]
[31]Mat 26:22.[The text. rec. reads: . But Dr. Lange, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and the majority of witnesses prefers: , each one, without .P. S.]
[32]Mat 26:24[ , . Lange: Fr ihn wre es besser, wenn er nicht geboren wre, fr jenen Menschen; it were better for him, if that man had not been born. The English Versions, except Wiclifs, take the liberty of transposing the pronoun and the noun.P. S.]
[33]Mat 26:26.The art. before 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 and before , Mat 26:27. It is not found in the parallel texts: Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19.P. S.]
[34]Mat 26:26.For : B., D., Z., and a number of later MSS., Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford]. For : 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 , like B., D., L., Z., the Syriac, and Vulgate Versions (benedixit). Comp. Mar 14:22P. 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 . 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. 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., Irenus, 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 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 by testament in thirteen passages, and by covenant in nineteen passages of the N. T.P. S.]
[39]Mat 26:29.[In Greek: , 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 Tholucks edition of Calvins 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 cna hoc Christi dictum Lucas subiicit, Non Potest tamen inde certa colligi temporis series, quam scimus Spe 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 , or , but . , in both cases, or , not the bread or wine itself, but the thing itself in each case; precluding 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 Meyers Com. on Matt. p. 500 (4th ed.): 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 wurdeP. 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. Hodges review of it in the Princeton Review for 1848 (from the Zwinglian stand-point), and Dr. Nevins 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 Lords Supper, in 2 vols., Frankf. 184546, also in his Dogmatics, and in a review of Dr. Nevins Mystical Presence in Ullmanns 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.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
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 , Luk 22:7 . Then came the day of unleavened bread when the Passover ought to be killed; though the custom were otherwise.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17 19. ] PREPARATION FOR CELEBRATING THE PASSOVER. Mar 14:12-16 . Luk 22:7-13 . The whole narrative which follows is extremely difficult to arrange and account for chronologically. Our Evangelist is the least circumstantial, and, as will I think appear, the least exact in detail of the three. St. Mark partially fills up the outline; but the account of St. Luke is the most detailed, and I believe the most exact. It is to be noticed that the narrative which St. Paul gives, 1Co 11:23-25 , of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and which he states he ‘ received from the Lord ,’ coincides almost verbatim with that given by Luke. But while we say this, it must not be forgotten that over all three narratives extends the great difficulty of explaining . (Matt., Mark), or . . . (Luke), and of reconciling the impression undeniably conveyed by them, that the Lord and his disciples ate the usual Passover , with the narrative of St. John, which not only does not sanction, but I believe absolutely excludes such a supposition. I shall give in as short a compass as I can, the various solutions which have been attempted, and the objections to them; fairly confessing that none of them satisfy me, and that at present I have none of my own. I will first state the grounds of the difficulty itself . The day alluded to in all four histories as that of the supper, which is unquestionably one and identical, is Thursday, the 13th of Nisan. Now the day of the Passover being slain and eaten was the 14th of Nisan (Exo 12:6 ; Exo 12:18 ; Lev 23:5 ; Num 9:3 ; Num 28:16 ; Eze 45:21 ), between the evenings ( ), which was interpreted by the generality of the Jews to mean the interval between the first westering of the sun (3 p.m.) and his setting, but by the Karaites and Samaritans that between sunset and darkness: in either case, however, the day was the same. The feast of unleavened bread began at the very time of eating the Passover ( Exo 12:18 ), so that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread was the 15 th ( Num 28:17 ). All this agrees with the narrative of John, where ( Joh 13:1 ) the last supper takes place . where the disciples think (ib. Joh 13:29 ) that Judas had been directed to buy the things where the Jews ( Joh 18:28 ) would not enter into the prtorium, lest they should be defiled, (see note on Joh 18:28 ) where at the exhibition of our Lord by Pilate (on the Friday at noon) it was ( Joh 19:14 ) and where it could be said ( Joh 19:31 ) , being as it was a double Sabbath , the coincidence of the first day of unleavened bread, which was sabbatically hallowed ( Exo 12:16 ), with an actual sabbath. But as plainly it does not agree with the view of the three other Evangelists, who not only relate the meal on the evening of the 13th of Nisan to have been a Passover, but manifestly regard it as the ordinary legal time of eating it. . . . ., ( Mar 14:12 ), ( Luk 22:7 ), and in our Gospel by implication, in the use of , &c., without any qualifying remark. The solutions which have been proposed are the following: (1) that the Passover which our Lord and his disciples ate, was not the ordinary, but an anticipatory one, seeing that He himself was about to be sacrificed as the true Passover at the legal time. To this it may be objected that such an anticipation would have been wholly unprecedented and irregular, in a matter most strictly laid down by the law: and that in the three Gospels there is no allusion to it, but rather every thing (see above) to render it improbable. (2) That our Lord and his disciples ate the Passover, but at the time observed by a certain portion of the Jews , while He himself was sacrificed at the time generally observed. This solution is objectionable, as wanting any historical testimony whereon to ground it, being in fact a pure assumption. Besides, it is clearly inconsistent with Mar 14:12 ; Luk 22:7 , cited above. A similar objection lies against (3) the notion that our Lord ate the Passover at the strictly legal, the Jews at an inaccurate and illegal time. (4) Our Lord ate only a , such as the Jews now celebrate, and not a (Grotius). But this is refuted by the absence of any mention of a . . before the destruction of Jerusalem ; besides its inconsistency with the above-cited passages. (5) Our Lord did not eat the Passover at all . But this is manifestly not a solution of the difficulty, but a setting aside of one of the differing accounts: for the three Gospels manifestly give the impression that He did eat it. (6) The solution offered by Chrys., on our Mat 26:58 (Hom. lxxxiv. 2, p. 800), is at least ingenious. The Council, he says, did not eat their Passover at the proper time, but , , . , . This had been suggested before in a scholium of Eusebius: see Wordsw.’s note on Joh 18:28 , in which it is adopted. But St. John’s habit of noticing and explaining all such exceptional circumstances, makes it very improbable. (I may state, as some solutions have been sent me by correspondents, that I have seen nothing besides the above, which justifies any extended notice.)
I will conclude this note by offering a few hints which, though not pointing to any particular solution, ought I think to enter into the consideration of the question. ( ) That, on the evening of the 13th (i.e. the beginning of the 14th) of Nisan, the Lord ate a meal with his disciples , at which the announcement that one of them should betray Him was made: after which He went into the Garden of Gethsemane, and was betrayed (Matt., Mark, Luke, John): ( ) That, in some sense or other , this meal was regarded as the eating of the Passover (Matt., Mark, Luke). (The same may be inferred even from John; for some of the disciples must have gone into the prtorium, and have heard the conversation between our Lord and Pilate ( Joh 18:33-38 ): and as they were equally bound with the other Jews to eat the Passover, would equally with them have been incapacitated from so doing by having incurred defilement, had they not eaten theirs previously . It would appear too, from Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate during the ( Mar 15:42-43 ), that he also had eaten his passover .) ( ) That it was not the ordinary passover of the Jews : for ( Exo 12:22 ) when that was eaten, none might go out of the house until morning; whereas not only did Judas go out during the meal ( Joh 13:29 ), but our Lord and the disciples went out when the meal was finished. Also when Judas went out, it was understood that he was gone to buy , which could not have been the case, had it been the night of eating the passover, which in all years was sabbatically hallowed. ( ) John, who omits all mention of the Paschal nature of this meal, also omits all mention of the distribution of the symbolic bread and wine. The latter act was, strictly speaking, anticipatory: the Body was not yet broken, nor the Blood shed (but see note on Mat 26:26 ad fin.). Is it possible that the words in Luk 22:15-16 may have been meant by our Lord as an express declaration of the anticipatory nature of that passover meal likewise? May they mean, ‘I have been most anxious to eat this Paschal meal with you to-night (before I suffer), for I shall not eat it to-morrow, I shall not eat of it any more with you?’ May a hint to the same effect be intended in ( Mat 26:18 ), as accounting for the time of making ready may the present tense itself have the same reference? I may remark that the whole of the narrative of John, as compared with the others, satisfies me that he can never have seen their accounts . It is inconceivable, that one writing for the purpose avowed in Joh 20:31 , could have found the three accounts as we have them, and have made no more allusion to the discrepancy than the faint (and to all appearance undesigned) ones in ib. ch. Joh 12:1 ; Joh 13:1 ; Joh 13:29 ; Joh 18:28 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
17. . . . ] If this night had been the ordinary time of sacrificing the Passover, the day preceding would not indeed have been strictly the first day of unleavened bread; but there is reason to suppose that it was accounted so. The putting away leaven from the houses was part of the work of the day, and the eating of the unleavened bread actually commenced in the evening. Thus Josephus, Antt. ii. 15. 1, , , including this day in the feast.
] The ‘making ready’ would include the following particulars: the preparation of the guest-chamber itself (which however in this case was already done, see Mar 14:15 and note); the lamb already kept up from the 10th ( Exo 12:3 ) had to be slain in the fore-court of the temple (2Ch 35:5 ; see also Jos. B. J. vi. 9. 3); the unleavened bread, bitter herbs, &c., prepared; and the room arranged. This report does not represent the whole that passed: it was the Lord who sent the two disciples; and in reply this enquiry was made (Luke).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 26:17-19 . Arrangements for Paschal Feast (Mar 14:12-16 , Luk 22:7-13 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 26:17 . . . The sacred season which began on the 14th Nisan and lasted for seven days, was two feasts rolled into one, the Feast of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and it was called by either name indifferently. , where? A much more perplexing question is: when? Was it on the evening of the 13th (beginning of 14th), as the Fourth Gospel seems to say, or on the evening of the following day, as the synoptical accounts seem to imply, that Jesus kept the Paschal Feast? This is one of many harmonistic problems arising out of the Gospel narratives from this point onwards, on which an immense amount of learned labour has been spent. The discussions are irksome, and their results uncertain; and they are apt to take the attention off far more important matters: the essentials of the moving tale, common to all the evangelists. We must be content to remain in doubt as to many points. , the deliberative subjunctive, without after .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 26:17-19
17Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 18And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.” ‘” 19The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
Mat 26:17 “the first day of Unleavened Bread” The exact chronology of the last week is confusing. Often the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John (Joh 13:1; Joh 19:14; Joh 19:31; Joh 19:42) do not agree. This eight day feast involved two Sabbaths, Passover being the first (cf. Lev 23:4-8; Deu 16:8).
“the disciples” Luk 22:8 identified Peter and John as these disciples.
“Passover” It was eaten on Nisan 15 at 6:00 p.m. The exact day of the week varied year to year because of the Jewish lunar calendar (cf. Mat 26:20).
Mat 26:18 “to a certain man” Luk 22:10 says he was to be identified by “carrying a pitcher of water,” an activity traditionally considered women’s work.
NASB, NRSV,
NJB”My time is near”
NKJV”My time is at hand”
TEV”My hour has come”
This was a cryptic phrase used by Jesus for His time of rejection, betrayal, and crucifixion (cf. Joh 2:4; Joh 7:6; Joh 7:8; Joh 7:30; Joh 8:20; Joh 12:23; Joh 13:1; Joh 17:1).
“at your house with My disciples” Many believe this was the home of John Mark who was
1. Barnabas’cousin (Col 4:10)
2. missionary helper (Act 12:25; Act 13:5; Act 13:13; Act 15:37; Act 15:39)
3. the scribe of Peter’s memoirs, the Gospel of Mark (1Pe 5:13)
It is also surmised that this was the location of the upper room (cf. Act 1:13; Act 12:12), where the disciples waited for the Spirit to come (Act 1:5; Act 2:1).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the first day. The eating of the Passover took place on the fourteenth of Nisan. See Exo 12:6, Exo 12:8, Exo 12:18. Lev 23:5. Num 9:3; Num 28:16. The fifteenth was the high sabbath, the first day of the feast. See Num 28:17.
Where . . . ? This question shows that the date was the fourteenth of Nisan.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17-19.] PREPARATION FOR CELEBRATING THE PASSOVER. Mar 14:12-16. Luk 22:7-13. The whole narrative which follows is extremely difficult to arrange and account for chronologically. Our Evangelist is the least circumstantial, and, as will I think appear, the least exact in detail of the three. St. Mark partially fills up the outline;-but the account of St. Luke is the most detailed, and I believe the most exact. It is to be noticed that the narrative which St. Paul gives, 1Co 11:23-25, of the institution of the Lords Supper, and which he states he received from the Lord, coincides almost verbatim with that given by Luke. But while we say this, it must not be forgotten that over all three narratives extends the great difficulty of explaining . (Matt., Mark), or . . . (Luke), and of reconciling the impression undeniably conveyed by them, that the Lord and his disciples ate the usual Passover, with the narrative of St. John, which not only does not sanction, but I believe absolutely excludes such a supposition. I shall give in as short a compass as I can, the various solutions which have been attempted, and the objections to them; fairly confessing that none of them satisfy me, and that at present I have none of my own. I will first state the grounds of the difficulty itself. The day alluded to in all four histories as that of the supper, which is unquestionably one and identical, is Thursday, the 13th of Nisan. Now the day of the Passover being slain and eaten was the 14th of Nisan (Exo 12:6; Exo 12:18; Lev 23:5; Num 9:3; Num 28:16; Eze 45:21), between the evenings ( ), which was interpreted by the generality of the Jews to mean the interval between the first westering of the sun (3 p.m.) and his setting,-but by the Karaites and Samaritans that between sunset and darkness:-in either case, however, the day was the same. The feast of unleavened bread began at the very time of eating the Passover (Exo 12:18), so that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread was the 15th (Num 28:17). All this agrees with the narrative of John, where (Joh 13:1) the last supper takes place . -where the disciples think (ib.Joh 13:29) that Judas had been directed to buy the things -where the Jews (Joh 18:28) would not enter into the prtorium, lest they should be defiled, (see note on Joh 18:28)-where at the exhibition of our Lord by Pilate (on the Friday at noon) it was (Joh 19:14) -and where it could be said (Joh 19:31) ,-being as it was a double Sabbath,-the coincidence of the first day of unleavened bread, which was sabbatically hallowed (Exo 12:16), with an actual sabbath. But as plainly it does not agree with the view of the three other Evangelists, who not only relate the meal on the evening of the 13th of Nisan to have been a Passover, but manifestly regard it as the ordinary legal time of eating it. . . . ., (Mar 14:12), (Luk 22:7), and in our Gospel by implication, in the use of , &c., without any qualifying remark. The solutions which have been proposed are the following: (1) that the Passover which our Lord and his disciples ate, was not the ordinary, but an anticipatory one, seeing that He himself was about to be sacrificed as the true Passover at the legal time. To this it may be objected that such an anticipation would have been wholly unprecedented and irregular, in a matter most strictly laid down by the law: and that in the three Gospels there is no allusion to it, but rather every thing (see above) to render it improbable. (2) That our Lord and his disciples ate the Passover, but at the time observed by a certain portion of the Jews, while He himself was sacrificed at the time generally observed. This solution is objectionable, as wanting any historical testimony whereon to ground it, being in fact a pure assumption. Besides, it is clearly inconsistent with Mar 14:12; Luk 22:7, cited above. A similar objection lies against (3) the notion that our Lord ate the Passover at the strictly legal, the Jews at an inaccurate and illegal time. (4) Our Lord ate only a , such as the Jews now celebrate, and not a (Grotius). But this is refuted by the absence of any mention of a . . before the destruction of Jerusalem; besides its inconsistency with the above-cited passages. (5) Our Lord did not eat the Passover at all. But this is manifestly not a solution of the difficulty, but a setting aside of one of the differing accounts: for the three Gospels manifestly give the impression that He did eat it. (6) The solution offered by Chrys., on our Mat 26:58 (Hom. lxxxiv. 2, p. 800), is at least ingenious. The Council, he says, did not eat their Passover at the proper time, but , , . , . This had been suggested before in a scholium of Eusebius: see Wordsw.s note on Joh 18:28, in which it is adopted. But St. Johns habit of noticing and explaining all such exceptional circumstances, makes it very improbable. (I may state, as some solutions have been sent me by correspondents, that I have seen nothing besides the above, which justifies any extended notice.)
I will conclude this note by offering a few hints which, though not pointing to any particular solution, ought I think to enter into the consideration of the question. () That, on the evening of the 13th (i.e. the beginning of the 14th) of Nisan, the Lord ate a meal with his disciples, at which the announcement that one of them should betray Him was made: after which He went into the Garden of Gethsemane, and was betrayed (Matt., Mark, Luke, John):-() That, in some sense or other, this meal was regarded as the eating of the Passover (Matt., Mark, Luke). (The same may be inferred even from John; for some of the disciples must have gone into the prtorium, and have heard the conversation between our Lord and Pilate (Joh 18:33-38): and as they were equally bound with the other Jews to eat the Passover, would equally with them have been incapacitated from so doing by having incurred defilement, had they not eaten theirs previously. It would appear too, from Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate during the (Mar 15:42-43), that he also had eaten his passover.) () That it was not the ordinary passover of the Jews: for (Exo 12:22) when that was eaten, none might go out of the house until morning; whereas not only did Judas go out during the meal (Joh 13:29), but our Lord and the disciples went out when the meal was finished. Also when Judas went out, it was understood that he was gone to buy, which could not have been the case, had it been the night of eating the passover, which in all years was sabbatically hallowed. () John, who omits all mention of the Paschal nature of this meal, also omits all mention of the distribution of the symbolic bread and wine. The latter act was, strictly speaking, anticipatory: the Body was not yet broken, nor the Blood shed (but see note on Mat 26:26 ad fin.). Is it possible that the words in Luk 22:15-16 may have been meant by our Lord as an express declaration of the anticipatory nature of that passover meal likewise? May they mean, I have been most anxious to eat this Paschal meal with you to-night (before I suffer), for I shall not eat it to-morrow,-I shall not eat of it any more with you? May a hint to the same effect be intended in (Mat 26:18), as accounting for the time of making ready-may the present tense itself have the same reference? I may remark that the whole of the narrative of John, as compared with the others, satisfies me that he can never have seen their accounts. It is inconceivable, that one writing for the purpose avowed in Joh 20:31, could have found the three accounts as we have them, and have made no more allusion to the discrepancy than the faint (and to all appearance undesigned) ones in ib. ch. Joh 12:1; Joh 13:1; Joh 13:29; Joh 18:28.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 26:17-19. 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? 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 discip1es. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
Note their prompt obedience: the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them. In this respect, they set an example we shall do well to follow.
Mat 26:20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
This was the memorable night when the Jewish passover was to melt into the Lords supper, just as the stars of the morning dissolve into the daylight.
Mat 26:21. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
This saying of our Lord must have startled his disciples; they had all made great professions of affection for him, and for the most part those professions were true; but this sentence must have fallen like a bomb-shell among them: One of you shall betray me.
Mat 26:22. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it?
They did not doubt their Lords declaration, they knew it must be true; and it produced in them deep emotion: They were exceeding sorrowful. It also wrought in them earnest self-examination; they did not any one of them say, Lord, is it Judas? Perhaps there was not one of them who could have thought so badly of Judas as to suppose that he would betray his Lord; they had such esteem for him that they had made him their treasurer. It is always wise for us to turn the glass of critical examination upon ourselves; we cannot do any good by suspecting our brethren. Suspicion stings like an adder; but we may do ourselves great service by suspecting and examining ourselves. Self-suspicion is near akin to humility and truthfulness; it was so with all but one of these disciples who began to say to Christ, Lord, is it I?
Mat 26:23-24. And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
So, you see, dear friends, that a man may get very near to Christ, ay, he may even dip his morsel in the same dish with his Lord, and yet he may betray him, even as Judas did. We may be very high in office; we may apparently be very useful; I have no doubt that Judas was exceedingly useful to the twelve and to the Master; and yet, for all that, we may betray him. God grant that we never may! Better far that we perished at our birth than that we should live to be traitors to our Lord.
Mat 26:25. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.
And if he had not been a hopeless reprobate, this unmasking of him ought to have driven him to repentance. A man may secretly indulge in his heart a wretched design, and, when discovered, he may loathe it; but, alas! there was nothing in Judas which could respond to the grace of God.
Mat 26:26-28. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Go into any Romish church, and watch the priests performance at the altar, and see whether there is the least likeness between that mummery and this divinely appointed ordinance. I can hardly imagine two things which are so widely apart. How did the Lords supper ever grow into the mass? It must have taken long years of moss and ivy and lichen and all kinds of clinging things to overgrow the original, natural column which the Saviour set up, and to turn it into that mingle-mangle of which the Romanists and Ritualists think so much. The only safe rule is to keep close to Scripture in everything; for, if you add a little, somebody will add more; and if you alter one thing, the next person will alter another, and, by-and-by, you will not know what the original was. I have seen a peasant, in Italy, wearing a coat of which I believe neither man nor angel could tell which was the material of which it was originally made, for it had been patched so often; and, in like manner, if we did not know what was the original of the mass, it would be impossible for us now to tell, for it has been so patched and mended that it is not at all like the original. Let us, beloved, keep strictly to the letter of Gods Word, and also to the spirit of it, lest we err from the truth as so many others have done.
Mat 26:29-30. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Was it not brave of our dear Lord to join in singing a hymn at such a time as that, and under such circumstances? He knew that he was very soon to die; he was going out to his last dread conflict; yet he went to it singing a Psalm. It was to his Passion that he was going, to Gethsemanes agony and bloody sweat; yet he led the way there with a sacred song upon his lips: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Now let us turn to Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians, at the eleventh chapter. We shall there see how this supper of the Lord had been changed, even in the few years since the death of the Master.
This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 26:17-30; and 1Co 11:20-34.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Mat 26:17. , now on the first day of unleavened bread) It was now Thursday, the fourteenth day of the first month;[1120] cf. Exo 12:6; Exo 12:15.-, where?) They ask not whether, but where, they should prepare the Passover.[1121] Jesus was wont to perform all things which were enjoined by the law.-, for Thee) Jesus was as the father of a family, surrounded by the family of His disciples.
[1120] Nisan 14, April 4. Greswell.-(I. B.)
[1121] Nor even do they say, When? all that they were concerned about was the supper-room where. Moreover, we may reasonably infer that the Jews also, and not Jesus alone, celebrated the paschal feast on the evening of Thursday, from the fact-1) That otherwise the disciples would undoubtedly have been censured by the Jews at the close of the Friday, for omitting to keep the Passover, which they were not; and 2) Because, on the year on which Christ suffered, the conjunction of the Moon and Sun, before the Passover, fell on Wednesday, and therefore the new moon and Passover itself could not be thrust forward to the Sabbath-day. There is to be added, 3) the consideration that the supper, which is recorded even by John, ch. Mat 13:1-2, was celebrated on Thursday, immediately before the feast of the Passover.-Harm., p. 501, 502.
On which they were bound to put away all leaven; and so the consumption of the paschal lamb could not be put off beyond 24 hours, to the evening of the Friday.-Harm., p. 490.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
The Last Passover and the New Memorial
Mat 26:17-18. 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? 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.
How truly royal was Jesus of Nazareth even in his humiliation! He had no home of his own wherein he could “keep the passover “with his disciples; he was soon to be put to a public and shameful death; yet he had only to send two of his disciples “into the city to such a man”, and the guest-chamber, furnished and prepared, was at once placed at his disposal. He did not take the room by arbitrary force, as an earthly monarch might have done; but he obtained it by the diviner compulsion of almighty love. Even in his lowest estate, our Lord Jesus had the hearts of all men beneath his control. What power he has now that he reigns in glory!
Mat 26:19. And the disciples did as Jems had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
If Christ’s disciples always loyally did as Jesus appointed them, they would always speed well on his errands. There are many more people in the world ready to yield to Christ than some of us think. If we would only go to them as Peter and John went to this man in Jerusalem, and say to them what “the Master saith”, we should find that their hearts would be opened to receive Christ even as this man’s house was willingly yielded up at our Lord’s request.
Mat 26:20-21. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Our Lord remained in seclusion until the evening, and then went to the appointed place, and sat down, or rather, reclined at the paschal table, with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said, “Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.” This was a most unpleasant thought to bring to a feast, yet it was most appropriate to the passover, for God’s commandment to Moses concerning the first paschal lamb was, “With bitter herbs they shall eat it.” This was a painful reflection for our Lord, and also for his twelve chosen companions: “One of you”, and his eyes would glance round the table as he said it, “One of you shall betray me.”
Mat 26:22. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I?
That short sentence fell like a bombshell among the Saviour’s body-guard. It startled them; they had all made great professions of affection for him, and, for the most part, those professions were true. And they were exceeding sorrowful: and well they might be. Such a revelation was enough to produce the deepest emotions of sorrow and sadness. It is a beautiful trait in the character of the disciples that they did not suspect one another, but every one of them enquired, almost incredulously, as the form of the question implies, “Lord, is it I?” No one said, “Lord, is it Judas? “Perhaps no one of the eleven thought that Judas was base enough to betray the Lord who had given him an honourable place among his apostles.
We cannot do any good by suspecting our brethren; but we may do great service by suspecting ourselves. Self-suspicion is near akin to humility.
Mat 26:23-24. And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
A man may get very near to Christ, ay, may dip his hand in the same dish with the Saviour, and yet betray him. We may be high in office, and may apparently be very useful, as Judas was; yet we may betray Christ.
We learn from our Lord’s words that divine decrees do not deprive a sinful action of its guilt: “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed.” His criminality is just as great as though there had been no “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” “It had been good for that man if he had not been born.” The doom of Judas is worse than non-existence. To have consorted with Christ as he had done, and then to deliver him into the hands of his enemies, sealed the traitor’s eternal destiny.
Mat 26:25. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said
Judas appears to have been the last of the twelve to ask the question,”Is it I?” Those who are the last to suspect themselves are usually those who ought to be the first to exercise self-suspicion. Judas did not address Christ as “Lord”, as the other disciples had done; but called him Rabbi, “Master.” Otherwise, his question was like that of his eleven companions; but he received from Christ an answer that was given to no one else: He said unto him, “Thou hast said.” Probably the reply reached his ear alone, and if he had not been a hopeless reprobate, this unmasking of his traitorous design might have driven him to repentance; but there was nothing in his heart to respond to Christ’s voice. He had sold himself to Satan before he sold his Lord.
Mat 26:26-28. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The Jewish passover was made to melt into the Lord’s supper, as the stars of the morning dissolve into the light of the sun. As they were eating, while the paschal supper was proceeding, Jesus instituted the new memorial which is to be observed until he comes again. How simple was the whole ceremony! Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Christ could not have meant that the bread was his body, for his body was reclining by the table; but he intended that broken bread to represent his body which was about to be broken on the cross. Then followed the second memorial, the cup, filled with “the fruit of the vine”, of which Christ said, “Drink ye all of it.”
There is no trace here of any altar or priest; there is nothing about the elevation or adoration of the host; there is no resemblance between the Lord’s supper and the Romish mass. Let us keep strictly to the letter and spirit of God’s “Word in everything; for, if one adds a little, another will add more, and if one alters one point, and another alters another point, there is no telling how far we shall get from the truth.
The disciples had been reminded of their own liability to sin; now their Saviour gives them a personal pledge of the pardon of sin, according to Mark’s record of his words, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
Mat 26:29. But I say unto you, 1 will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.
Thus Jesus took the great Nazarite vow never to drink of the fruit of the vine till he should drink it new with his disciples in his Father’s kingdom. He will keep his tryst with all his followers, and they with him shall hold high festival for ever.
Mat 26:30. And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Was it not truly brave of our dear Lord to sing under such circumstances? He was going forth to his last dread conflict, to Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha; yet he went with a song on his lips. He must have led the singing, for the disciples were too sad to start the hallel with which the paschal feast closed: And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Then came that desperate struggle in which the great Captain of our salvation wrestled even to a bloody sweat, and prevailed.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom
the first: Exo 12:6, Exo 12:18-20, Exo 13:6-8, Lev 23:5, Lev 23:6, Num 28:16, Num 28:17, Deu 16:1-4, Mar 14:12, Luk 22:7
Where: Mat 3:15, Mat 17:24, Mat 17:25, Luk 22:8, Luk 22:9
Reciprocal: Exo 12:21 – and take Deu 16:2 – sacrifice Ezr 6:22 – the feast Mat 27:62 – the day Act 12:3 – Then 1Co 11:23 – the same
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6:17
Matthew resumes his history at the place where he left it at verse 5. Feast of unleavened bread. The 14th day of the first month was the time of the passover (Exo 12:6), and it was to be eaten with unleavened bread (verse 8). And the seven days following were also days in which they were to eat unleavened bread (Lev 23:5-6). For more details about these days of unleavened bread, see the comments at Exo 12:15 and Lev 23:6-7 in volume 1 of the Old Testament Commentary. Jesus and his apostles ate their pass-over two days before the regular time
(verse 2), and hence all the other items as to dates were set back correspondingly. The entire eight days beginning with the 14th came to be referred to as the feast of unleavened bread, so that the day of the passover (14th) would be called the first day of unleavened bread as we see it here; hence these italicized words apply to Christ and his apostles only in this place and the like statements in the other Gospels accounts. This being a special date for them, the disciples wished some instructions where to arrange for the passover, knowing Jesus would not eat it in any public place with the Jews.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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?
[Where wilt thou that we prepare, etc.] For they might anywhere; since the houses at Jerusalem were not to be hired, as we have noted elsewhere, but during the time of the feast they were of common right.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 26:17. On the first day of unleavened bread. The 14th of Nisan, when the leaven was removed. In the evening of this day (after the 15th had begun) the Passover was eaten. (See note on p. 207).
The disciples. It is probable that they came with the intention of inquiring on this point, and their thought was answered by the command mentioned in Luke (Luk 22:8), to which they responded: Where wilt thou, etc. As strangers they must join some household in the city. The householder kept the lamb from the 10th day of the month; he presented it in the temple, between the evenings, i.e., between three and six oclock in the afternoon of the fourteenth, himself slew it. The priests, standing in a row extending to the altar, received the blood in silver basins, which they passed from hand to hand, until at the foot of the altar the blood was poured out, whence it flowed by an underground conduit into the brook Kedron. This took the place of the sprinkling of the blood on the doorposts. The householder then removed the skin and fat from the lamb; the latter was burned on the altar by the priest, the former was carried home bound about the lamb. As the number of lambs was very great the persons bringing them were admitted in detachments. The disciples asked where they should find a householder who was ready to do this, and whom they, as his guests, would assist. The accounts of Mark and Luke intimate that most of the preparations were already made.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
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.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
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 mans 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 masters 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
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 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 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]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
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 Calvarys 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.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 26:17-19. Preparation for the Last Supper (Mar 14:12-16*, Luk 22:7-13).Mt. again abbreviates. The instruction is given to the Twelve (not to twoin Lk., Peter and John), and they go direct to the friend (a disciple who would understand the phrase My time is at hand) at whose house the festival is to be kept; nothing is said about the man with the pitcher.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 17
Feast of unleavened bread. During the eight days set apart for the solemnities connected with the celebration of the passover, bread made without leaven was to be used, in commemoration of the haste and confusion attending the flight from Egypt, when there was no time for the proper preparation of the bread (Exodus 12:33,34,13:5-10.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
26:17 {6} Now {g} 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?
(6) Christ purposing to bring us into our country without delay and so, to pay the penalty of the law, truly fulfils the law, omitting the contrary tradition and custom of the Jews: and thus shows that all things will so come to pass by the ministry of men as governed by the secret plan of God.
(g) This was the fourteenth day of the first month: now the first day of unleavened bread should have been the fifteenth, but because the evening of this day (which after the manner of the Romans was referred to the day before) belonged by the Jews’ manner to the day following, therefore it is called the first day of unleavened bread.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus’ last Passover 26:17-30
In this section Matthew emphasized the preparations for the Passover meal, Jesus’ prediction of His betrayal, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Preparations for the Passover 26:17-19 (cf. Mar 14:12-16; Luk 22:7-13)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread would have been Thursday, the fourteenth of Nisan (cf. Exo 12:18). [Note: For detailed discussions of the chronology of these last days, see Hoehner, Chronological Aspects . . ., pp. 81-93; Carson, "Matthew," pp. 528-32; and France, The Gospel . . ., pp. 980-85.] The Jews commonly spoke of Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread as the feast of Unleavened Bread. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 2:15:1.]
"It was probably after the early meal, and when the eating of leaven had ceased, that Jesus began preparations for the Paschal Supper." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:480.]