Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 26:28

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

28. this is my blood ] The blood of the sacrifice was the seal and assurance of the old covenant, so wine is the seal of the new covenant, under which there is no shedding of blood.

new testament ] The word “new” is omitted in the most ancient MSS. here and in Mark.

testament ] The Greek word means either (1) a “covenant,” “contract,” or (2) “a will.” The first is the preferable sense here, as in most passages where the word occurs in N.T. the new covenant is contrasted with “the covenant which God made with our fathers,” Act 3:25. It need hardly be remarked that the title of the New Testament is derived from this passage.

for many ] i. e. to save many; “for” is used in the sense of dying for one’s country.

many ] See note ch. Mat 20:28.

for the remission of sins ] “For” here marks the intention, “in order that there may be remission of sins.” These words are in Matthew only.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Verse 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament] This is the reading both here and in St. Mark; but St. Luke and St. Paul say, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This passage has been strangely mistaken: by New Testament, many understand nothing more than the book commonly known by this name, containing the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, apostolical Epistles, and book of the Revelation; and they think that the cup of the New Testament means no more than merely that cup which the book called the New Testament enjoins in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. As this is the case, it is highly necessary that this term should be explained. The original, , which we translate, The New Testament, and which is the general title of all the contents of the book already described, simply means, the new COVENANT. Covenant, from con, together, and venio, I come, signifies an agreement, contract, or compact, between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties. It answers to the Hebrew berith, which often signifies, not only the covenant or agreement, but also the sacrifice which was slain on the occasion, by the blood of which the covenant was ratified; and the contracting parties professed to subject themselves to such a death as that of the victim, in case of violating their engagements. An oath of this kind, on slaying the covenant sacrifice, was usual in ancient times: so in Homer, when a covenant was made between the Greeks and the Trojans, and the throats of lambs were cut, and their blood poured out, the following form of adjuration was used by the contracting parties: –

, , ,

,

‘ , ,

, ‘ .

All glorious Jove, and ye, the powers of heaven!

Whoso shall violate this contract first,

So be their blood, their children’s and their own,

Poured out, as this libation, on the ground

And let their wives bring forth to other men!

ILIAD l. iii. v. 298-301.

Our blessed Saviour is evidently called the , berith, or covenant sacrifice, Isa 42:6; Isa 49:8; Zec 9:11. And to those Scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the Lord promises to give him for a covenant (sacrifice) to the Gentiles, and to send forth, by the blood of this covenant (victim) the prisoners out of the pit. The passages in the sacred writings which allude to this grand sacrificial and atoning act are almost innumerable. See the Preface to Matthew.

In this place, our Lord terms his blood the blood of the NEW covenant; by which he means that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God was now establishing between himself and mankind, by the passion and death of his Son, through whom alone men could draw nigh to God; and this NEW covenant is mentioned in contradistinction from the OLD covenant, , 2Co 3:14, by which appellative all the books of the Old Testament were distinguished, because they pointed out the way of reconciliation to God by the blood of the various victims slain under the law; but now, as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, was about to be offered up, a NEW and LIVING way was thereby constituted, so that no one henceforth could come unto the Father but by HIM. Hence all the books of the New Testament, which bear unanimous testimony to the doctrine of salvation by faith through the blood of Jesus, are termed, , The NEW covenant. See the Preface.

Dr. Lightfoot’s Observations on this are worthy of serious notice. “This is my blood of the New Testament. Not only the seal of the covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant. The end of the Mosaic economy, and the confirming of a new one. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, Ex 24, Heb 9, because blood was still to be shed: the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine, because under the new covenant there is no farther shedding of blood. As it is here said of the cup, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; so it might be said of the cup of blood, Ex 24, That cup was the Old Testament in the blood of Christ: there, all the articles of that covenant being read over, Moses sprinkled all the people with blood, and said, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you; and thus the old covenant or testimony was confirmed. ln like manner, Christ, having published all the articles of the new covenant, he takes the cup of wine, and gives them to drink, and saith. This is the New Testament in my blood; and thus the new covenant was established.” – Works, vol. ii. p. 260.

Which is shed (, poured out) for many] and , to pour out, are often used in a sacrificial sense in the Septuagint, and signify to pour out or sprinkle the blood of the sacrifices before the altar of the Lord, by way of atonement. See 2Kg 16:15; Le 8:15; Le 9:9; Ex 29:12; Le 4:7; Le 4:14; Le 4:17; Le 4:30; Le 4:34; and in various other places. Our Lord, by this very remarkable mode of expression, teaches us that, as his body was to be broken or crucified, , in our stead, so here the blood was to be poured out to make an atonement, as the words, remission of sins, sufficiently prove for without shedding of blood there was no remission, Heb 9:22, nor any remission by shedding of blood, but in a sacrificial way. See the passages above, and on Mt 26:26.

The whole of this passage will receive additional light when collated with Isa 53:11-12. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify MANY, for he shall bear their iniquities – because he hath POURED OUT his soul unto death, and he bare the sin of MANY. The pouring out of the soul unto death, in the prophet, answers to, this is the blood of the new covenant which is poured out for you, in the evangelists; and the , rabbim, multitudes, in Isaiah, corresponds to the MANY, , of Matthew and Mark. The passage will soon appear plain, when we consider that two distinct classes of persons are mentioned by the prophet.

1. The Jews. Isa 53:4. Surely he hath borne OUR griefs, and carried OUR sorrows. Isa 53:5. But he was wounded for OUR transgressions, he was bruised for OUR iniquities, the chastisement of OUR peace was upon him. Isa 53:6. All WE like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of US all.

2. The GENTILES. Isa 53:11. By his knowledge, bedaato, i.e. by his being made known, published as Christ crucified among the Gentiles, he shall justify rabbim, the multitudes, (the GENTILES,) for he shall (also) bear THEIR offences, as well as OURS, the Jews, Isa 53:4, c.

It is well known that the Jewish dispensation, termed by the apostle as above, , the OLD covenant, was partial and exclusive. None were particularly interested in it save the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob: whereas the Christian dispensation, , the NEW covenant, referred to by our Lord in this place, was universal for as Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for EVERY man, Heb 2:9, and is that Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the WORLD, Joh 1:29, who would have ALL MEN to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, Matt 26:1; Matt 2:4, even that knowledge of Christ crucified, by which they are to be justified, Isa 53:11, therefore he has commanded his disciples to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE, Mr 16:15. The reprobate race, those who were no people, and not beloved, were to be called in; for the Gospel was to be preached to all the world, though it was to begin at Jerusalem, Lu 24:47. For this purpose was the blood of the new covenant sacrifice poured out for the multitudes, that there might be but one fold, as there is but one Shepherd; and that God might be ALL and in ALL.

For the remission of sins.] , for (or, in reference to) the taking away of sins. For, although the blood is shed, and the atonement made, no man’s sins are taken away until, as a true penitent, he returns to God, and, feeling his utter incapacity to save himself, believes in Christ Jesus, who is the justifier of the ungodly.

The phrase, , remission of sins, (frequently used by the Septuagint), being thus explained by our Lord, is often used by the evangelists and the apostles; and does not mean merely the pardon of sins, as it is generally understood, but the removal or taking away of sins; not only the guilt, but also the very nature of sin, and the pollution of the soul through it; and comprehends all that is generally understood by the terms justification and sanctification. For the use and meaning of the phrase , see Mr 1:4; Lu 1:77; Lu 3:3; Lu 24:47; Ac 2:38; Ac 5:31; Ac 10:43; Ac 13:38; Ac 26:18; Col 1:14; Heb 10:18.

Both St. Luke and St. Paul add, that, after giving the bread, our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me. And after giving the cup, St. Paul alone adds, This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. The account, as given by St. Paul, should be carefully followed, being fuller, and received, according to his own declaration, by especial revelation from God. See 1Co 11:23, For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, &c. See the harmonized view above.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

For this is my blood of the New Testament,…. That is, the red wine in the cup, was an emblem and representation of his precious blood, whereby was exhibited a new dispensation, or administration of the covenant of grace; and by which it was ratified and confirmed; and whereby all the blessings of it, such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and eternal life, come to the people of God: the allusion is to the first covenant, and the book of it being sprinkled with the blood of bulls, and therefore called the blood of the covenant, Ex 24:8. But the second covenant, or the new administration of the covenant of grace, for which reason it is called the New Testament, is exhibited and established in the blood of Christ the testator. It was usual, even among the Heathens, to make and confirm their covenants by drinking human blood, and that sometimes mixed with wine e.

Which is shed for many, for the remission of sins; that is, was very shortly to be shed, and since has been, for all the elect of God; for the many that were ordained to eternal life, and the many that were given to Christ, the many that are justified by him, and the many sons he will bring to glory: whereby the full forgiveness of all their sins was procured, in a way consistent with, and honourable to the justice of God; full satisfaction being made to the law of God, for all their transgressions.

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

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Covenant ( ). The adjective in Textus Receptus is not genuine. The covenant is an agreement or contract between two (, , , from ). It is used also for will (Latin, testamentum) which becomes operative at death (Heb 9:15-17). Hence our New Testament. Either covenant or will makes sense here. Covenant is the idea in Heb 7:22; Heb 8:8 and often. In the Hebrew to make a covenant was to cut up the sacrifice and so ratify the agreement (Ge 15:9-18). Lightfoot argues that the word means covenant in the N.T. except in Heb 9:15-17. Jesus here uses the solemn words of Ex 24:8 “the blood of the covenant” at Sinai. “My blood of the covenant” is in contrast with that. This is the New Covenant of Matt 26:31; Matt 26:8.

Which is shed for many ( ). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in 20:28. There and here .

Unto remission of sins ( ). This clause is in Matthew alone but it is not to be restricted for that reason. It is the truth. This passage answers all the modern sentimentalism that finds in the teaching of Jesus only pious ethical remarks or eschatological dreamings. He had the definite conception of his death on the cross as the basis of forgiveness of sin. The purpose of the shedding of his blood of the New Covenant was precisely to remove (forgive) sins.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Testament [] . From diatiqhmi, to distribute; dispose of. Hence of the disposition of one’s property. On the idea of disposing or arranging is based that of settlement or agreement, and thence of a covenant. The Hebrew word of which this is a translation is primarily covenant, from a verb meaning to cut. Hence the phrase, to make a covenant, in connection with dividing the victims slain in ratification of covenants (Gen 14:9 – 18). Covenant is the general Old Testament sense of the word (1Ki 20:34; Isa 28:15; 1Sa 18:3); and so in the New Testament. Compare Mr 14:24; Luk 1:72; Luk 22:20; Act 3:25; Act 7:8. Bishop Lightfoot, on Gal 3:15, observes that the word is never found in the New Testament in any other sense that that of covenant, with the exception of Heb 9:15 – 17, where it is testament. We cannot admit this exception, since we regard that passage as one of the best illustrations of the sense of covenant. See on Heb 9:15 – 17. Render here as Rev., covenant.

Is shed [] . The present participle, is being shed. Christ ‘s thought goes forward to the consummation.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

(28) For this is my blood of the new testament.Better, this is My blood of the Covenant; the best MSS. omitting the word new both here and in St. Mark. It was probably introduced into the later MSS. to bring the text into harmony with St. Lukes report. Assuming the word new to have been actually spoken by our Lord, we can understand its being passed over by some reporters or transcribers whose attention had not been specially called to the great prophecy of Jer. 31:31-34. That prophecy was, however, certain to have a prominent place in the minds of those who had come into contact, as St. Luke must have done, with the line of thought indicated in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Matthew 8, 9), and therefore we cannot wonder that we find it in the report of the words given by him (Mat. 22:20) and by St. Paul (1Co. 11:25). If we were to accept the other alternative, it would still be true that the covenant of which our Lord spoke was ipso facto new, and was therefore that of which Jeremiah had spoken, and that the insertion of the word (looking to the general freedom of the Gospels in reporting our Lords discourses) was a legitimate way of emphasising that fact.

Dealing with the words, we note (1) that the word covenant is everywhere (with, possibly, the one exception of Heb. 9:16, but see Note there) the best equivalent for the Greek word. The popular use of the New Testament for the collected writings of the apostolic age, makes its employment here and in the parallel passages singularly infelicitous. (2) That the blood of the covenant is obviously a reference to the history of Exo. 24:4-8. The blood which the Son of Man was about to shed was to be to the true Israel of God what the blood which Moses had sprinkled on the people had been to the outward Israel. It was the true blood of sprinkling (Heb. 12:24), and Jesus was thus the Mediator of the New Covenant as Moses had been of the Old (Gal. 3:19). (3) That so far as this was, in fact or words, the sign of a new covenant, it turned the thoughts of the disciples to that of which Jeremiah had spoken. The essence of that covenant was to be the inward working of the divine law, which had before been brought before the conscience as an external standard of duty(I will put My law in their inward parts, Jer. 31:33)a truer knowledge of God, and through that knowledge the forgiveness of iniquity; and all this, they were told, was to be brought about through the sacrifice of the death of Christ.

Which is shed for many.The participle is, as before, in the present tensewhich is being shedthe immediate future being presented to them as if it were actually passing before their eyes. As in Mat. 20:28, our Lord uses the indefinite for many, as equivalent to the universal for all. St, Pauls language in 1Ti. 2:6 shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, how the words for many had been interpreted.

For the remission of sins.This had been from the outset the substance of the gospel which our Lord had preached, both to the people collectively (Luk. 4:16-19) and to individual souls (Mat. 9:2; Luk. 7:48). What was new in the words now was this connection with the shedding of His blood as that which was instrumental in obtaining the forgiveness. Returning, with the thoughts thus brought together, to the command of Mat. 26:27, Drink ye all of it, we may see, as before in the case of the bread, an allusive reference to the mysterious words of Joh. 6:53-54. In the contrast between the sprinkling of Exo. 24:6 and the drinking here enjoined, we may legitimately see a symbol, not only of the participation of believers in the life of Christ, as represented by the blood, but also of the difference between the outward character of the Old Covenant and the inward nature of the New. It is, perhaps, not altogether outside the range of associations thus suggested to note that to drink together of a cup filled with human blood had come to be regarded as a kind of sacrament of closest and perpetual union, and as such was chosen by evildoersas in the case of Catiline (Sallust, Catil. c. 22)to bind their partners in guilt more closely to themselves. The cup which our Lord gave His disciples, though filled with wine, was to be to them the pledge of a union in holiness as deep and true as that which bound others in a league of evil.

We cannot pass, however, from these words without dwelling for a moment on their evidential aspect. For eighteen centurieswithout, so far as we can trace, any interruption, even for a single weekthe Christian Church, in all its manifold divisions, under every conceivable variety of form and ritual, has had its meetings to break bread and to drink wine, not as a social feast (from a very early date, if not from the beginning, the limited quantity of bread and wine must have excluded that idea), but as a commemorative act. It has referred its observance to the command thus recorded, and no other explanation has ever been suggested. But this being granted, we have in our Lords words, at the very time when He had spoken of the guilt of the Traitor and His own approaching death, the proof of a divine prescience. He knew that His true work was beginning and not ending; that He was giving a commandment that would last to the end of time; that He had obtained a greater honour than Moses, and was the Mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 3:3; Heb. 8:6).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

28. This is my blood As the grain is the body, so the juice is the blood of the life of universal nature. And as the vine is the most beautiful pipe through which the juice of nature’s life flows forth to exhilarate man, so its ruddy colour reminds us that it is as it were the very blood which creation gives forth from her own body to cheer and nourish man. Thereby how striking an image does it become of the true blood which is shed forth from the body of nature’s incarnate God! It reminds us at once of his death and our life. Hence, when he poured the wine forth, how strong an image does he ever present to us of that streaming blood which assures us of the death of Him who died for all. Sense thus aids faith.

Of the new testament As the blood of the paschal lamb was of the Old Testament. The word testament properly signifies covenant, or agreement by God with men; in the which he prescribes a system of duties and conditions, and promises his blessings. Under Moses, he had the old covenant or testament; under Christ, the new. And so the two volumes of the Bible are called the Old Testament and the New. Note here that the blood of the Old Testament, that is, of the passover, was just as truly and really the blood of the Saviour as the blood of the New, that is, the wine of the communion. The one was symbolical, so was the other.

Shed for many As the bread should be broken, so wine should be poured, both acts representing the action of death. For many For so many as are born of Adam. “No stress is to be laid on this word , many, as not being , all, here; it is placed in opposition to the one life which is given the one for many and not with any distinction from .” Alford.

For the remission of sins As without the retaining of the blood in the living system death ensues, so the blood is said in the ceremonial law to be the life. And so the flowing of the blood is the true ceremonial exhibition to the sight of vicarious or sacrificial death. Hence the apostle tells us that in the whole sacrificial system “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” So the flowing blood of the Redeemer, both from his extremities and from his side, is the visible manifestation of his death, as the reality of death is necessary both to the performance of the entire work of redemption and to represent the death of the soul from which he would save men.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Mat 26:28 . The death-symbolism is now applied to that which contains the life (Gen 9:4 ff., and comp. on Act 15 ), viz. the blood, which is described as sacrificial blood that is to be shed in order to make atonement. Neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament (Heb 12:24 not excepted) can there be any question of the glorified blood of Christ. Comp. on Mat 26:26 , and on 1Co 10:16 . According to New Testament ideas, glorified blood is as much a contradictio in adjecto as glorified flesh. This also in opposition to Hofmann, p. 220.

] this , which ye are about to drink, the wine which is in this cup. Although this wine was red, it must not be supposed that the point of the symbolism lay in the colour (Wetstein, Paulus), but in the circumstance of its being poured out (see below: . . .) into the cup; the outpouring is the symbolical correlative to the breaking in the case of the bread.

] justifies the , on the ground of the interpretation given to that which is about to be drunk.

] as in Mat 26:26 .

] This is the preferable reading; see the critical remarks. “ This is my blood of the covenant, my covenant blood ( , Exo 24:8 ), my blood which serves to ratify the covenant with God. This is conceived of as sacrificial blood (in opposition to Hofmann). See Delitzsch on Heb 9:20 . In a similar way Moses ratified the covenant with God by means of the sacrificial blood of an animal, Exo 24:6 ff. On the double genitive with only one noun, see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 111 f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309; Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]. For the arrangement of the words, comp. Thuc. iv. 85. 2 : . The connecting of the with corresponds to the of Mat 26:26 , as well as to the amplified form of our Lord’s words as given by Luke and Paul; consequently we must not, with Rckert, connect the pronoun with . (the blood of my covenant). The covenant which Jesus has in view is that of grace, in accordance with Jer 31:31 ff., hence called the new one (by Paul and Luke) in contradistinction to the old one under the law. See on 1Co 11:26 .

. ] Epexegesis of , by way of indicating who are to participate in the covenant ( ), the divine benefit conferred upon them ( . .), and the means by which the covenant is ratified ( .): which is shed (expressing as present what, though future, is near and certain) for the benefit of many, inasmuch as it becomes instrumental in procuring the forgiveness of sins. The last part of this statement, and consequently what is implied in it, viz. the atoning purpose contemplated by the shedding of blood (comp. Lev 17:11 ), is to be understood as setting forth more precisely the idea expressed by . It must not be supposed, however, that , which is used by Luke instead of , is essentially different from the latter; but is to be distinguished from it only in respect of the different moral basis on which the idea contained in it rests (like the German um and ber), so that both the prepositions are often interchanged in cases where they have exactly one and the same reference, as in Demosthenes especially. See generally, on Gal 1:4 ; 1Co 1:13 ; 1Co 15:3 .

The shedding of the blood is the objective medium of the forgiveness of sins; the subjective medium, viz. faith, is contained by implication in the use made in this instance, as in Mat 20:28 (see on the passage), of , as well as in the symbolic reference of the .

It is to be observed, further, that the genuineness of the words . . is put beyond all suspicion by the unexceptionable evidence in their favour (in opposition to David Schulz), although, from their being omitted in every other record of the institution of the supper (also in Justin, Ap. i. 66, c. Tr. 70), they should not be regarded as having been originally spoken by Christ, but as an explanatory addition introduced into the tradition, and put into the mouth of Jesus.

REMARK 1.

That Jesus meant to institute a regular ordinance to be similarly observed by His church in all time coming, is not apparent certainly from the narrative in Matthew and Mark; but it is doubtless to be inferred from 1Co 11:24-26 , no less than from the practice of the apostolic church, that the apostles were convinced that such was the intention of our Lord, so much so, that to the words of the institution themselves was added that express injunction to repeat the observance . which Paul and Luke have recorded. As bearing upon this matter, Paul’s declaration: , Mat 26:23 , is of such decisive importance that there can no longer be any doubt (Rckert, p. 124 ff.) as to whether Jesus intended to institute an ordinance for future observance. We cannot, therefore, endorse the view that the repetition of the observance was due to the impression made upon the minds of the grateful disciples by the first celebration of the supper (Paulus, comp. also Weisse, Evangelienfr . p. 195).

REMARK 2.

The two most recent and exhaustive Protestant monographs treating of the Lord’s supper on the lines of the Confessions, but also discussing the subject exegetically, are: Ebrard, das Dogma vom heil. Abendm ., Frankf. 1845 f., as representing the Reformed view, and Kahnis, d. Lehre vom Abendm ., Lpz. 1851, as representing the Lutheran . Rckert, on the other hand, d. Abendm., s. Wesen u. s. Gesch . (Lpz. 1856), ignores the Confessions altogether, and proceeds on purely exegetical principles. The result at which Ebrard arrives, p. 110 (comp. what he says, Olshausen’s Leidensgesch . 1862, p. 103), is as follows: “The breaking of the bread is a memorial of the death of Jesus; the eating of the bread thus broken is a symbolical act denoting that this death is appropriated by the believer through his fellowship with the life of Christ. But inasmuch as Jesus gives the bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk, and inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the new covenant in His blood, the bread and the wine are, therefore, not mere symbols , but they assume that he who partakes of them is an actual sharer in the atonement brought about by the death of Christ. And since such a fellowship with Christ’s death cannot exist apart from fellowship with His life; since, in other words,” the new covenant “consists in an actual connection and union , it follows that partaking of the Lord’s supper involves as its result a true, personal central union and fellowship of life with Christ.” The result at which Kahnis arrives in his above-cited work published in 1851 [30] is the orthodox Lutheran view, and is as follows: “The body which Christ gives us to feed upon in the supper is the same that was broken for us on the cross, just as its substratum, the bread, was broken, with a view to its being eaten. The blood which Christ gives us to drink in the supper is the same that was shed for us on the cross, just as its substratum, the wine, was poured out, with a view to its being drunk” (p. 104). He comes back to Luther’s synecdoche in regard to , which latter he takes as representing the concrete union of two substances, the one of which, viz. the bread, constitutes the embodiment and medium of the other (the body); the former he understands to be, logically speaking, only accidental in its nature, the essential substance being brought out in the predicate. As for the second element, he considers that it expresses the identity of the communion blood with the blood of the atoning sacrifice, and that not in respect of the function, but of the thing itself (for he regards it as an arbitrary distinction to say that the former blood ratifies, and that the latter propitiates); and that, accordingly, the reality in point of efficacy which, in the words of the institution, is ascribed to the latter necessarily implies a corresponding efficacy in regard to the former.

By adopting the kind of exegesis that has been employed in establishing the strictly Lutheran view, it would not be difficult to make out a case in favour of that doctrine of transubstantiation and the mass which is still keenly but awkwardly maintained by Schegg, and which finds an abler but no less arbitrary and mistaken advocate in Dllinger ( Christenth. u. Kirche , pp. 37 ff., 248 ff., Exo 2 ), because in both cases the results are based upon the application of the exegetical method to dogmatic premises.

Then, in the last place, Rckert arrives at the conclusion that, as far as Matthew and Mark are concerned, the whole stress is intended to be laid upon the actions , that these are to be understood symbolically , and that the words spoken serve only as hints to enable us to interpret the actions aright. He thinks that the idea of an actual eating of the body or drinking of the blood never crossed the mind either of Jesus or of the disciples; that it was Paul who, in speculating as to the meaning of the material substances , began to attach to them a higher importance, and to entertain the view that in the supper worthy and unworthy alike were partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the supersensual and heavenly form in which he conceived them to exist subsequent to the Lord’s ascension. In this way, according to Rckert, Paul entered upon a line of interpretation for which sufficient justification cannot be found either in what was done or in what was spoken by our Lord, so that his view has furnished the germs of a version of the matter which, so far at least as its beneficial results are concerned, does not tell in his favour (p. 242). In answer to Rckert in reference to Paul, see on 1Co 10:16 .

[30] In his Dogmatik , however (1861), I. pp. 516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis candidly acknowledges the shortcomings of the Lutheran view, and the necessity of correcting them, and manifests, at the same time, a decided leaning in the direction of the Reformed doctrine. The supper, he says, “ is the medium, of imparting to the believing communicant, in bread and wine, the atoning efficacy of the body and blood of Christ that have been sacrificed for us, which atoning efficacy places him to whom it is imparted in mysterious fellowship with the body of Christ .” Kahnis now rejects, in particular, the Lutheran synecdoche and approves of the symbolical interpretation in so far as bread and wine, being symbols of Christ’s body and blood, constitute, in virtue of the act of institution, that sacramental word concerning our Lord’s body and blood which when emitted by Christ has the effect of conveying the benefits of His death. He expresses himself more clearly in II. p. 557, where he says: “The Lord’s supper is the sacrament of the altar which, in the form of bread and wine, the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which have been sacrificed for us, imparts to the believing communicant the sin-forgiving efficacy of Christ’s death.” Those divinely-appointed symbols he regards as the visible word concerning Christ’s body and blood, which word, as the terms of the institution indicate, is the medium through which the atoning power of His death, i.e . the forgiveness of sins, is communicated. From the bread and wine Christ is supposed to create a eucharistic corporeality, which He employs as the medium for the communication of Himself.

REMARK 3.

As for the different versions of the words of the institution that are to be met with in the four evangelists, that of Mark is the most concise (Matthew’s coming next), and, considering the situation (for when the mind is full and deeply moved the words are few) and the connection of this evangelist with Peter, it is to be regarded as the most original. Yet the supplementary statements furnished by the others are serviceable in the way of exposition, for they let us see what view was taken of the nature of the Lord’s supper in the apostolic age, as is pre-eminently the case with regard to the . of Paul and Luke. Comp. on Luk 22:19 . According to Gess, I. p. 147, the variations in question are to be accounted for by supposing that, while the elements were circulating, Jesus Himself made use of a variety of expressions. But there can be no doubt that on an occasion of such painful emotion He would utter the few thoughtful words He made use of only once for all . This is the only view that can be said to be in keeping with the sad and sacred nature of the situation, especially as the texts do not lead us to suppose that there was any further speaking; comp., in particular, Mar 14:23-24 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

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

Ver. 28. For this is my blood ] This cup is my blood, viz. in a sacramental sense; as before the bread is said to be Christ’s body. If the words of Christ when he said, “this is my body,” did change the substance, then, belike, when Christ said, “this cup is my blood,” the substance of the cup was likewise changed into his blood, said Shetterden the martyr to Archdeacon Harpfield. And you can no more enforce of necessity (said another martyr) from the words of Christ the changing of the bread and wine into his body and blood, than the wife’s flesh to be the natural and real flesh of her husband, because it is written, “they are not two but one flesh.” Besides, whereas it is forbidden that any should eat or drink blood, the apostles notwithstanding took and drank of the cup, &c. And when the sacrament was administered, none of them all crouched down, and took it for his god. Quandoquidem Christiani manducant Deum quem adorant, said Averroes the Arabian, sit anima mea cum Philosophis. Since Christians eat their God, I’ll have none.

Which is shed ] That is, shall shortly be shed. But all is delivered and set down in the present tense, here and elsewhere in this business: because to faith (which at this sacrament we should chiefly actuate and exercise) all things are made present, whether they he things to come (as to these disciples) or things past, as now to us. A communicant must call up his faith, and bespeak it as Deborah did herself, Jdg 5:12 . Awake, awake, Deborah, utter a song. Ascend up to heaven in the act of receiving, and fetch down Christ: lean by faith upon his blessed bosom, cleave to his cross, suck honey out of this rock, and oil out of the flinty rock, Deu 32:13 , et intra ipsa redemptoris vulnera figite linguam, as Cyprian expresseth it. Let faith have her perfect work, since she is both the hand, mouth, and stomach of the soul.

For remission of sins ] This includes all the benefits of the New Covenant, all the purchase of Christ’s passion, sweetly sealed up to every faithful receiver. Christ instituted his holy supper, tanquam , a sovereign preservative or purgative, saith Ignatius. And by this sacrament we are fenced and strengthened against the devil and all his assaults, saith Chrysostom, Ita ut nos fugiat tanquam si leones ignem exspuentes essemus, so that he shunneth us, as if we were so many lions spitting fire at him.

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

28. [ ] . ] So Mark also, omitting and . In Luke and 1 Cor. there is an important verbal difference. . [ ] . But if we consider the matter closely, the real difference is but trifling, if any. Let us recur to the Paschal rite. The lamb ( ) being killed, the blood ( , Exo 24:8 ) is sprinkled on the doorposts, and is a sign to the destroying angel to spare the house. The blood of the covenant is the blood of the lamb. So also in the new covenant. The blood of the Lamb of God, slain for us, being not only, as in the former case, sprinkled on, but actually partaken spiritually and assimilated by , the faithful soul, is the blood of the new covenant ; and the sacramental cup, is, signifies, sets forth ( , 1Co 11:26 ), this covenant in His blood , i.e. consisting in a participation in His blood. With this explanation let us recur to the words in our text. First it will be observed that there is not here that absolute assertion which conveyed. It is not absolutely. Wine, in general , does not represent by itself the effects (on the creation) of the blood of Christ; it, like every other nourishment of the body, is nourishment to us by and in Him , forasmuch as in Him all things consist: but there is no peculiar propriety whereby it is to us his Blood alone. But it is made so by a covenant office which it holds in his own declaration. Without shedding of blood was no remission of sins under the old covenant: and blood was, throughout, the covenant sign of forgiveness and acceptance. (See ref. Heb., where the Author, substituting for in the LXX of Exo 24:8 , seems to be alluding to this very formula.) Now all this blood of sacrifice finds its true reality and fulfilment in the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of sins. This is the very promise of the new covenant, see Heb 8:8-13 , as distinguished from the old: the , once for all, whereas the old had continual offerings, which could not do this, Heb 10:3-4 . And of this , the result of the outpouring of the blood of Christ, first and most generally in bringing all creation into reconciliation with the Father (see Col 1:20 ), secondly and individually , in the application by faith of that blood to the believing soul, do the faithful in the Lord’s Supper partake.

(Luke, ) . ] On the present participle, see above. The situation of the words in Luke is remarkable; for is the subject of the sentence, and . the predicate. See note there.

] see note, ch. Mat 20:28 . Cf. also Heb 9:28 .

] Peculiar to Matthew: see above. The connexion is not . . In the Sacrament, not the forgiveness of sins itself, but the refreshing and confirming assurance of that state of forgiveness is conveyed. The disciples (with one exception) were clean before the institution : Joh 13:10-11 . St. Paul, in 1Co 11:25 , repeats the . On the words , see note there.

In concluding this note I will observe that it is not the office of a Commentator to enter the arena of controversy respecting transubstantiation , further than by his exegesis his opinions are made apparent. It will be seen how entirely opposed to such a dogma is the view above given of the Sacrament. Once introduce it, and it utterly destroys both the verity of Christ’s Body , and the sacramental nature of the ordinance . That it has done so, is proved (if further need be) by the mutilation of the Sacrament , and disobedience to the divine command, in the Church of Rome. See further notices of this in notes on 1Co 10:16 , and on Joh 6:1-71 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 26:28 . : the very colour of the wine suggestive; hence called in Deu 32:14 ; my blood, pointing to the passion, like the breaking of the bread. (for the two gen. . . dependent on , vide Winer, 30, 3, 3), the blood of me, of the covenant . The introduction of the idea appropriate to the circumstances: dying men make wills ( , Euthy.). The epithet in T. R. is superfluous, because involved in the idea. The covenant of course is new. It is Jeremiah’s new covenant come at last. The blood of the covenant suggests an analogy between it and the covenant with Israel ratified by sacrifice (Exo 24:8 ). : the shedding for many suggests sacrificial analogies; the present participle vividly conceives that which is about to happen as now happening; is an echo of in Mat 20:28 . : not in Mk., and may be a comment on Christ’s words, supplied by Mt.; but it is a true comment. For what else could the blood be shed according to Levitical analogies and even Jeremiah’s new covenant, which includes among its blessings the complete forgiveness of sin?

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

My blood. No covenant could be made without shedding of blood (Exo 24:8. Heb 9:20); and no remission of sins without it (Lev 17:11).

the new testament = the New Covenant. This can be nothing else than that foretold in Jer 31:31. If not made then, it can never now be made, for the Lord has no blood to shed (Luk 24:39). This is the ground of the proclamation of “them that heard Him” (Heb 2:3). See Act 2:38, and Act 3:19, &c. See also App-95.

new. Greek. kainos. New as to quality and character; not fresh made. Compare Mat 27:60. Mar 1:27.

testament. Greek. diatheke. This is the first occurrence in the N.T. It is an O.T. word, and must always conform to O.T. usage and translation. It has nothing whatever to do with the later Greek usage. The rendering “testament” comes from the Vulgate “testamentum”. See App-95. Diatheke occurs in N.T. thirty three times, and is rendered covenant twenty times (Luk 1:72. Act 3:25; Act 7:8. Rom 9:4; Rom 11:27. Gal 1:3, Gal 1:15, Gal 1:17; Gal 4:24. Eph 2:12. Heb 8:6, Heb 8:8, Heb 8:9, Heb 9:10; Heb 9:4, Heb 9:4; Heb 10:16, Heb 10:29; Heb 12:24; Heb 13:20); and testament thirteen times (here, Mar 14:24. Luk 22:20. 1Co 11:25. 2Co 3:6, 2Co 3:14. Heb 7:22; Heb 9:15, Heb 9:15, Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, Heb 9:20. Rev 11:19). It should be always rendered “covenant”. See notes on Heb 9:15-22, and App-95.

is. Used by the Figure of speech Prolepsis. App-6.

for the remission of sins. See Act 2:38; Act 3:19.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

28. [] .] So Mark also, omitting and . In Luke and 1 Cor. there is an important verbal difference. . [] . But if we consider the matter closely, the real difference is but trifling, if any. Let us recur to the Paschal rite. The lamb ( ) being killed, the blood ( , Exo 24:8) is sprinkled on the doorposts, and is a sign to the destroying angel to spare the house. The blood of the covenant is the blood of the lamb. So also in the new covenant. The blood of the Lamb of God, slain for us, being not only, as in the former case, sprinkled on, but actually partaken spiritually and assimilated by, the faithful soul, is the blood of the new covenant; and the sacramental cup, is, signifies, sets forth (, 1Co 11:26), this covenant in His blood, i.e. consisting in a participation in His blood. With this explanation let us recur to the words in our text. First it will be observed that there is not here that absolute assertion which conveyed. It is not absolutely. Wine, in general, does not represent by itself the effects (on the creation) of the blood of Christ; it, like every other nourishment of the body, is nourishment to us by and in Him, forasmuch as in Him all things consist: but there is no peculiar propriety whereby it is to us his Blood alone. But it is made so by a covenant office which it holds in his own declaration. Without shedding of blood was no remission of sins under the old covenant: and blood was, throughout, the covenant sign of forgiveness and acceptance. (See ref. Heb., where the Author, substituting for in the LXX of Exo 24:8, seems to be alluding to this very formula.) Now all this blood of sacrifice finds its true reality and fulfilment in the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of sins. This is the very promise of the new covenant, see Heb 8:8-13, as distinguished from the old: the , once for all,-whereas the old had continual offerings, which could not do this, Heb 10:3-4. And of this , the result of the outpouring of the blood of Christ,-first and most generally in bringing all creation into reconciliation with the Father (see Col 1:20),-secondly and individually, in the application by faith of that blood to the believing soul,-do the faithful in the Lords Supper partake.

(Luke, ) .] On the present participle, see above. The situation of the words in Luke is remarkable; for is the subject of the sentence, and . the predicate. See note there.

] see note, ch. Mat 20:28. Cf. also Heb 9:28.

] Peculiar to Matthew: see above. The connexion is not . . In the Sacrament, not the forgiveness of sins itself, but the refreshing and confirming assurance of that state of forgiveness is conveyed. The disciples (with one exception) were clean before the institution: Joh 13:10-11. St. Paul, in 1Co 11:25, repeats the . On the words , see note there.

In concluding this note I will observe that it is not the office of a Commentator to enter the arena of controversy respecting transubstantiation, further than by his exegesis his opinions are made apparent. It will be seen how entirely opposed to such a dogma is the view above given of the Sacrament. Once introduce it, and it utterly destroys both the verity of Christs Body, and the sacramental nature of the ordinance. That it has done so, is proved (if further need be) by the mutilation of the Sacrament, and disobedience to the divine command, in the Church of Rome. See further notices of this in notes on 1Co 10:16, and on Joh 6:1-71.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 26:28. , this) The true blood of Christ is shown to be actually present, just as the blood of the victims was in the Mosaic formula cited in Heb 9:20; for that formula is here referred to.- , of the New) in contradistinction to the Old: see Exo 24:8, sc. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said Behold the blood of the covenant, etc.-, testament, disposition, dispensation) Many theologians of the Reformed Church, and some even of the Evangelical communion,[1135] endeavoured in the last generation to reduce the whole scheme of Christian doctrine to the form of a covenant: a method pre-eminently suited to the Jewish theology; but Scripture expresses the New divine economy in this case, as it is wont in other cases, by a word belonging to the Old scheme, although employed in a sense not exactly coinciding with its original meaning: nor can we easily speak of the NEW, , or Dispensation (Dispositio), except in contrast to the Old, either expressed or implied. In short, the very words and [by which the Old and New Dispensation are severally indicated] differ from each other, and their difference corresponds wonderfully with the actual state of the case. For the word accords more with the Old economy, which had the form of a covenant, whereas accords more with the New economy, which has the form of a testament; on which account the Talmudists employ the Greek word [, written in Hebrew characters] as not having a Hebrew word whereby to express it. But the idea of a covenant does not so well agree with that entire son-ship which exists under the New Testament dispensation. Even the very notion of a testament, will at last, as it were, come to an end, on account of our intimate union with God: see Joh 17:21-22, and 1Co 15:28.-, many) even beyond the limits of Israel.-, which is being shed) The present tense. There is the same potency in the Holy Supper, as if in that self-same moment the body of Christ was always being given, and His blood being shed.- , remission of sins) the especial blessing of the New Testament dispensation. [Eph 1:7, E. B.]

[1135] In Bengel, Reformed = Calvinistic: Evangelical = Lutheran.-(I. B.)

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

remission

Forgiveness. Summary: The Greek word translated “remission” in Mat 26:28; Act 10:43; Heb 9:22 is elsewhere rendered “forgiveness.” It means, to send off, or away. And this, throughout Scripture, is the one fundamental meaning of forgiveness–to separate the sin from the sinner. Distinction must be made between divine and human forgiveness:

(1) Human forgiveness means the remission of penalty. In the Old Testament and the New, in type and fulfilment, the divine forgiveness follows the execution of the penalty. “The priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he had committed, and it shall be forgiven him” Lev 4:35.

“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission sending away, forgiveness of sins” (Mat 25:28). “Without shedding of blood there is no remission” Heb 9:22.

See “Sacrifice” (See Scofield “Gen 4:4”); Gen 4:4 See Scofield “Heb 10:18”. The sin of the justified believer interrupts his fellowship, and is forgiven upon confession, but always on the ground of Christ’s propitiating sacrifice; 1Jn 1:6-9; 1Jn 2:2.

(2) Human forgiveness rests upon and results from the divine forgiveness. In many passages this is assumed rather than stated, but the principle is declared in Eph 4:32; Mat 18:32; Mat 18:33.

sins Sin.

(See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

The Blood of the Covenant

This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.Mat 26:28.

1. This verse is intensely interesting, because it contains one of our Lords rare sayings about the purpose of His death. For the most part the New Testament teachings on that great theme come from the Apostles, who reflected on the event after it had passed into history, and had the light of the resurrection upon it. Still, it is not just to say that the Apostles originated the doctrine of the atonement. Not only is that doctrine foreshadowed in Isaiah 53; in the institution of His Supper our Lord also distinctly sets it forth. Before this He spoke of His life being given as a ransom for many (Mat 20:28), and He called Himself the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep (Joh 10:15).

2. In the institution of the Supper, Christ distinctly tells us in what aspect He would have that death remembered. Not as the tragic end of a noble career which might be hallowed by tears such as are shed over a martyrs ashes; not as the crowning proof of love; not as the supreme act of patient forgiveness; but as a death for us, in which, as by the blood of the sacrifice, is secured the remission of sins. And not only so, but the double symbol in the Lords Supperwhilst in some respects the bread and wine speak the same truths, and certainly point to the same crosshas in each of its parts special lessons intrusted to it, and special truths to proclaim. The bread and the wine both say, Remember Me and My death. Taken in conjunction they point to that death as violent; taken separately they each suggest various aspects of it, and of the blessings that will flow to us therefrom.

It is said that old Dr. Alexander, of Princeton College, when a young student used to start out to preach, always gave him a piece of advice. The old man would stand with his grey locks and his venerable face and say, Young man, make much of the blood in your ministry. Now I have travelled considerably during the past few years, and never met a minister who made much of the blood and much of the atonement but God had blessed his ministry, and souls were born into the light by it. But a man who leaves it outthe moment he goes, his church falls to pieces like a rope of sand, and his preaching has been barren of good results.1 [Note: D. L. Moody, Sermons, Addresses, and Prayers, 161.]

I

The Covenant

1. Christ speaks here of a covenant. Most religions presuppose some form of covenant with the object of their worship. The idea fills and dominates the Old Testament. And thus Christ found a ready point of attachment, a foundation of rock, on which He could build up His new order of truth. A covenant is a compact, an arrangement, an agreement, a contract between two persons or two parties, involving mutual privileges, conditions, obligations, promises. The Hebrew word appears to have the idea of cutting, and hence primitive contracts or covenants were made by the shedding of blood or the sacrifice of an animal.

2. After God had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, He entered into a covenant with them at Mount Sinai. A covenant is an agreement betwixt two, securing on a certain condition a certain advantage. The advantage under the covenant at Mount Sinai was that the Lord should be their God and they His people; and the condition was that they should observe His Law. And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgements: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath spoken will we do.

But the children of Israel proved unfaithful. In the pathetic language of Scripture, they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves down unto them: they turned aside quickly out of the way wherein their fathers walked, obeying the commandments of the Lord; but they did not so. And therefore the covenant was cancelled. They rebelled, and grieved his Holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy. He abandoned them to the lust of their hearts, and they suffered disaster after disaster till they were stricken with the final blow, the Babylonian Captivity, and laid in the very dust.

But that was not the end.

What began best, cant end worst,

Nor what God blessed once, prove accurst.

His heart still yearned for them. He remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people. He could not let them go, and He turned to them in their misery. He raised up a prophet in their midst, and charged him with a message of hope. They had broken the first covenant, but He would grant them a fresh opportunity and enter into a new and better covenant with them. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.

Is it not a grand thought that between us and the infinite Divine nature there is established a firm and unmovable agreement? Then He has revealed His purposes; we are not left to grope in darkness, at the mercy of peradventures and probablies; nor reduced to consult the ambiguous oracles of nature or of Providence, or the varying voices of our own hearts, or painfully and dubiously to construct more or less strong bases for confidence in a loving God out of such hints and fragments of revelation as these supply. He has come out of His darkness, and spoken articulate words, plain words, faithful words, which bind Him to a distinctly defined course of action. Across the great ocean of possible modes of action for a Divine nature He has, if I may say so, buoyed out for Himself a channel, so that we know His path, which is in the deep waters. He has limited Himself by the utterance of a faithful word, and we can now come to Him with His own promise, and cast it down before Him, and say, Thou hast spoken, and Thou art bound to fulfil it. We have a covenant wherein God has shown us His hand, has told us what He is going to do and has thereby pledged Himself to its performance.1 [Note: A. Maclaren.]

3. This new covenant was to be, so the tremendous promise runs on, a spiritual one, an experimental and universal knowledge of God, a covenant of pardon, complete and sure. Jeremiah was allowed to see the covenant only as Moses saw the promised land from Pisgah. He never saw it realized, but he knew that every promise of God is an oath and a covenant. For he had learnt in the shocks and changes of his life the unfailing pity of Him with whom he had been privileged to have fellowship and to hold dialogues. The old agreement was, If ye will obey my voice and do my commandments, thenso and so will happen. The old condition was, Do and live; be righteous and blessed! The new condition is, Take and have; believe and live! The one was law, the other is gift; the one was retribution, the other is forgiveness. One was outward, hard, rigid law, fitly graven with a pen of iron on the rocks for ever; the other is impulse, love, a power bestowed that will make us obedient; and the sole condition that we have to render is the condition of humble and believing acceptance of the Divine gift. The new covenant, in the exuberant fulness of its mercy, and in the tenderness of its gracious purposes, is at once the completion and the antithesis of the ancient covenant with its precepts and its retribution.

This glad era was ushered in by the Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises; and, since it was necessary that a covenant should be ratified by a sacrifice, He, the true Paschal Lamb, at once Victim and Priest, sealed the new covenant with His own precious blood. Thus it was that He interpreted His Death in the Upper Room. He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.

The covenant is explicitly declared to be founded on Christs expiatory death, and to be received by the partaking of His body and blood. This importance of the person and work of Jesus, both for the inauguration and the reception of the covenant, agrees with the view that the covenant designates the present, provisional blessedness of believers, for this stage is specifically controlled and determined by the activity of Christ, so that St. Paul calls it the Kingdom of Christ in distinction from the Kingdom of God, which is the final state. The Covenant idea shares with the ideas of the Church this reference to the present earthly form of possession of the Messianic blessings, and this dependence on the person and work of the Messiah (cf. Mat 16:18; Mat 18:17). The difference is that in the conception of the Church, the organization of believers into one body outwardly, as well as their spiritual union inwardly, and the communication of a higher life through the Spirit stand in the foreground, neither of which is reflected upon in the idea of the Covenant. The Covenant stands for that central, Godward aspect of the state of salvation, in which it means the atonement of sin and the full enjoyment of fellowship with God through the appropriation of this atonement in Christ.1 [Note: Geerhardus Vos, in Hastings Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, i. 380.]

II

The Sealing Blood

1. Christ regards His own blood as the seal and confirmation of the covenant. Covenants were ratified in different ways; sometimes, for instance, the contracting parties were held to be bound by eating salt together; sometimes by partaking together of a sacrificial meal; sometimes by passing between the divided pieces of slaughtered animals; and especially by the use, still prevalent in many parts of the world, of blood, as by each of the parties tasting each others blood, or smearing himself with it, or letting it be mingled with his own, etc., or by both jointly dipping their hands in the blood of the slaughtered animal. The idea, therefore, of a covenant in blood would not appear strange and new to the Apostles, or occur to them as repugnant, as it does to the minds of men of the Western modern civilization. To us, however far from the ideal we fall, and whatever compromises we adopt, we know our word ought to be our bond, our yea yea, and our nay nay. We have our stamped contracts because the ideal is still beyond the powers of human nature at large. But in the early days the shedding of blood was a form of ratification which no other emphasis could equal. It united, it at-one-d, the parties concerned with a firmness which no verbal agreement could accomplish.

Jeremiahs reference to Sinai bids us turn to that wonderful scene where the high mountains formed the pillars and walls of a natural temple, and where the first covenant was ratified with abundance of sacrificial blood. Moses, we are told, read the Book of the Covenant in the ears of the people; and, taking the blood, sprinkled half of it upon the altar with the twelve pillars and half upon the people. The law was thus given with a covenant of blood. God thus bound the nation to Himself. He had offered great blessings if the people would keep the words of His law; His people had responded: All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do.

Now it is impossible to suppose that Christ had no reference to the promises made through Jeremiah, and, through them, to the scene at Sinai. His Apostles, at least, so understood His words, the new covenant in my blood. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews calls Him the new Moses, mediating a better covenant, founded on better promises. The cross was in His view, though none of His disciples saw it, in the Upper Room. But He saw that His blood was to be the sacrificial blood in which the new covenant was to be sealed, confirmed, ratified. He was inaugurating a new people, and was to lead them forth out of the Egypt of sin and alienation into the Promised Land of holiness and the fellowship of God. He was to be the leader of a new emigration from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light and love. The bonds broken under the old covenant were to be reknit under the new covenant. The cup is the pledge, the symbol, of that new bond. And every time we drink the cup we are renewing the covenant which God has offered to all men in and through Christ.

When the Greeks and the Trojans called a truce pending the single combat between Menelaos and Paris, they ratified it by a sacrifice.

He spake, and the throats of the lambs with pitiless blade he severed,

And laid them low on the earth all quivering and gasping

For lack of vital breath; for the blade their strength had stolen.

And anon from the mixing-bowl they drew the wine in goblets,

And poured it forth and prayed to the gods that live for ever.

And thus said one and another among the Achans and Trojans:

Whicheer of us, breaking the oaths, may do harm unto the others,

Their brains on the ground be scattered een as this wine is outpourd

Theirs and their sonsand their wives be a prize unto others.

The custom was universal. The heathen observed it, and so did Israel. Thus it is written: Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.1 [Note: D. Smith, The Feast of the Covenant, 41.]

2. Christs death was the consummation of His infinite sacrifice, the further reach of His redeeming Love. When He had yielded His life in steadfast devotion to the Fathers honour and patient travail for the souls of men, what more was possible? Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. The cross is our Lords divinest glory; for this, says Clement of Alexandria, is the greatest and kingliest work of Godto save mankind.

His death was not an isolated event. It did not stand alone. It was the consummation of His life, the crown of His ministry, the completion of His redemption. When the New Testament speaks of His death, it means not simply His crucifixion on Calvary, but all that led up to that supreme crisisHis steadfast obedience to the Fathers will, which continued all the days of His flesh and found its ultimate expression when, with the cross before Him, He said, Not my will, but thine, be done, and so freely gave Himself into the hands of wicked men to be mocked and tortured and slain. His entire life was sacrificiala truth which St. Paul expresses when he says, Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

Here is a fundamental truth, essential to a just appreciation of our Lords redeeming work; and in these moving lines the poet has perceived what theologians have too often missed:

Very dear the Cross of shame

Where He took the sinners blame,

And the tomb wherein the Saviour lay,

Until the third day came;

Yet He bore the self-same load,

And He went the same high road,

When the carpenter of Nazareth

Made common things for God.

A life of loving and constant obediencethis is Gods requirement. This it is that we have failed to render; and His doing on our behalf what we have failed to do is our Blessed Lords Atonement for the sin of the world.1 [Note: D. Smith, The Feast of the Covenant, 52.]

III

The Remission Secured by the Sealed Covenant

1. Shed for many unto remission of sins. Remission literally means to throw back, or throw away, and the term is used simply because, when God forgives our sins, He is contemplated as throwing them away, tossing them clear off, outside of all subsequent thought or concern in regard to them. There is another expression used in Scripture for the same thought, which is also figurative. Repent and turn, says Peter, that your sins may be blotted out. They are contemplated in that expression as having been written down in some book of Gods remembrance, as it were, and God in forgiving them is figuratively represented as blotting out that writing. And blotting out with the ancients was a little more complete than it is, usually, with us. When we write something down with ink, and blot it out, there still remain some marks to indicate that once there was writing there. If you write on a slate and rub it out, some marks are often left. The ancients used a wax tablet. Take one of our common slates and fill it with wax even with the frame, and you will have an ancient wax tablet. A sharp-pointed instrument made the marks in the wax, and when they wished to blot it out, they turned the flat end of the stylus and rubbed it over, and there was an absolute erasure of every mark that had been made. That is the figure, then, used by Peter for the forgiveness of sinsindicating that when God forgives sins, they are not only thrown away, as in the expression remission, but they are blotted outthe last trace of them being gone, and gone for ever.

From morn to eve they struggledLife and Death,

At first it seemed to me that they in mirth

Contended, and as foes of equal worth,

So firm their feet, so undisturbed their breath.

But when the sharp red sun cut through its sheath

Of western clouds, I saw the brown arms girth

Tighten and bear that radiant form to earth,

And suddenly both fell upon the heath.

And then the wonder came; for when I fled

To where those great antagonists down fell,

I could not find the body that I sought,

And when and where it went I could not tell;

One only form was left of those who fought,

The long dark form of Deathand it was dead.1 [Note: Cosmo Monkhouse.]

2. But, it may be asked, how does our Lords life of obedience even unto death avail for us? It was His own life, and how is it linked on to our lives? What is the nexus between it and them? View it as the sacrifice which ratified the New Covenant. It is the covenant that links our lives to His. Remember what the sacrifice at Mount Sinai signified. The victim was presented in the name of the people; and the offering of its life at the altar was symbolic of the surrender of their lives to God. And even so Jesus is our Representative. He is the second Head of humanity, and as, by the operation of those mysterious laws which link the generations, the entail of Adams sin is the heritage of his children, so in like manner the righteousness of Jesus touches us too. He lived His life and died His death in our name and on our behalf; and, that we may enter into the covenant and appropriate its benefits, we have only to acknowledge Him as our Representative and say Amen to all that He did and all that He was. We have only to approach the throne of mercy in our sinfulness and weakness and point to that holy life laid, in perfect devotion to the Fathers will, on the altar of Calvary, making it our offering and presenting it before God as the life which we fain would live and by His grace shall live. And thus we lay our sins on Jesus, the spotless lamb of God, and, making His sacrifice our formula at once of confession and of consecration, win by it acceptance and peace.

In all nations beyond the limits of Israel, the sacrifices of living victims spoke not only of surrender and dependence, but likewise of the consciousness of demerit and evil on the part of the offerers, and were at once a confession of sin, a prayer for pardon, and a propitiation of an offended God. And the sacrifices in Israel were intended and adapted not only to meet the deep-felt want of human nature, common to them as to all other tribes, but also were intended and adapted to point onwards to Him in whose death a real want of mankind was met, in whose death a real sacrifice was offered, in whose death an angry God was not indeed propitiated, but in whose death the loving Father of our souls Himself provided the Lamb for the offering, without which, for reasons deeper than we can wholly fathom, it was impossible that sin should be remitted.

Let me mention here a circumstance in the last days of the distinguished Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, who, at an extreme age, but in full possession of all his rare mental powers, was brought to the knowledge of the Saviour. He said, I never used to be able to understand what these good people meant when they spoke so much of the blood, the blood. But I understand it now; its just Substitution! Ay, that is it, in one word, Substitutionmy blood shed for many for the remission of sins,Christs blood instead of ours,Christs death for our eternal death,Christ made a curse, that we might be redeemed from the curse of the law. Once in conversation, my beloved friend, Dr. Duncan, expressed it thus in his terse way, A religion of blood is Gods appointed religion for a sinner, for the wages of sin is death.1 [Note: C. J. Brown, The Word of Life, 94.]

3. Theology has long laboured to explain the death of Christ on the theory that God, not man, was the problem: Gods anger rather than mans cleaving to his sin. God was thought of as caring supremely for His outraged law, as indeed being bound by His law, as though law were a Divine Being with independent rights and a claim to compensation, as though a father could love a rule more than his own child. The difficulty lies in what we have made of ourselves. Gods task is not to overcome His own resentment and say I forgive, but to forgive so as to heal us of our self-inflicted wounds, to inspire us to forgive ourselves, to trust and hope for ourselves by trusting and hoping in His eternal love and patience. His forgiveness is not a word, or an act, but a self-communication. God Himself is the Atonement. He is the propitiation for our sins. We may have done badly, shamefully. Good men may condemn us, suspect and distrust us, justly, for we condemn and distrust ourselves. But One believes in us and for us, hopes for us. God in Christ stands by the soul forsaken of all others. We were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, but with precious blood even the blood of Christ.

No one that has ever read Tennysons Guinevere can have forgotten the great forgiveness scene with which it closes. The guilty wife lies prostrate at her husbands feet, and grovels with her face against the floor. Lo! I forgive thee as Eternal God forgives, said Arthur. Do thou for thine own soul the rest. Ah! but one who forgives like God should do and say something more. A husband mediating Gods forgiveness should show himself able to trust a wife that can no longer trust herself, love one that loathes herself, hope for one that can only despair for herself. So the atoning love of God takes hold of Arthur, and he pours the ointment of love on the golden hair that lies so low, and he pours hope like oil into the dark soul and lights the promise of future days:

Hereafter in that world where all are pure

We two may meet before high God, and thou

Wilt spring to me, and claim me thine, and know

I am thine husband.

And while she grovelld at his feet,

She felt the Kings breath wander oer her neck,

And in the darkness oer her fallen head,

Perceived the waving of his hands that blest.

Does not the human truth of that come to you? Do you not see that beyond the wrong done to Arthur was the wrong done to herself? The task of forgiveness was not to slake the kings wrath, but to redeem the queens soul and cure her of being the thing she had made of herself.1 [Note: J. M. Gibbon.]

4. The blood speaks of a life infused. The blood is the life, says the physiology of the Hebrews. The blood is the life, and when men drink of that cup they symbolize the fact that Christs own life and spirit are imparted to them that love Him. Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in you. The very heart of Christs gift to us is the gift of His own very life to be the life of our lives. In deep, mystical reality He Himself passes into our being, and the law of the spirit of life makes us free from the law of sin and death, so that we may say, He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit, and the humble believing soul may rejoice in this; I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. This is, in one aspect, the very deepest meaning of this Communion rite. As physicians sometimes tried to restore life to an almost dead man by the transfusion into his shrunken veins of the fresh warm blood from a young and healthy subject, so into our fevered life, into our corrupted blood, there is poured the full tide of the pure and perfect life of Jesus Christ Himself, and we live, not by our own power, or for our own will, or in obedience to our own caprices, but by Him and in Him, and with Him and for Him. This is the heart of Christianitythe possession within us of the life, the immortal life, of Him who died for us.

Whatever life had anywhere been found and lost, whatever life had never been found, was given to man in Christ. It may be that this or that portion of the vast inheritance of life has never as yet been claimed, or has been but doubtfully claimed, because faith in Him has been too petty or wilful in its scope as well as too feeble in its energy. But in Christ life was given in its fulness nevertheless, and in that due subordination which alone secures that nothing be lost. This is the one character of the Gospel which takes precedence of all others; its many partial messages are unfoldings of its primary message of life. Salvation according to Scripture is nothing less than the preservation, restoration, or exaltation of life: while nothing that partakes or can partake of life is excluded from its scope; and as is the measure, grade, and perfection of life, such is the measure, grade, and perfection of salvation.1 [Note: F. J. A. Hort, The Way, The Truth, The Life, 100.]

5. Shed for many. The terms of the covenant are comprehensive. The cup commemorates the supreme moment when the barrier between God and man was swept away, and the access to communion with God was opened by a new and living way. It bids all men remember that the Divine life and love are free for all who will receive them. Whosoever will may come and enter into the covenant of God in Christ. None are excluded save those who exclude themselves. Here is our comfort. Salvation does not rest on our goodness of character or on our worthiness of conduct, but on the covenant relationship in Christ. Such an immense debt will prevent us from taking liberties with our life, and will continually inspire in us a devotion to serve as our talents allow and our opportunities permit.

Jesus died to bring in the Kingdom of God. That is one thing we can be sure of. Now, what was this Kingdom of God as conceived by Him? Subjectively considered, it was the reign of God in mens hearts, and to establish it thus involved the bringing of men to God, so that His Spirit should possess their hearts and they be made the true children and heirs of God. The Cross was meant to be effectual for this. Its aim was ethical, and nothing short of that which would lead to an ethical Salvation would be the bringing in of the Kingdom of God. But the Kingdom had also an objective aspect. As such, it was the Kingdom of Gods Grace; it was something that should come from God as His great gift to men; it was the drawing nigh of God to the sinful, and as yet unrepentant, world, with the proclamation of Forgiveness, nay, with the assurance of it as the foundation of a solemn Covenant made with men; and it was only through the coming of the Kingdom in this objective way that it could come effectually, or, in its power, subjectively. Christ therefore intended that His Cross should bring to men the assurance of the Divine Forgiveness. The Divine Forgiveness or Remission of Sins that comes to men through the Cross is not the Forgiveness of individual sinners on their Repentance (which was always open to men), but the Forgiveness of God going forth to the whole sinful world, in order to lead men to Repentance and to make them members of Gods Kingdom. It comes as the proclamation of a Divine amnesty to men, but it is of no avail unless it is accepted by them so as to make them loyal members of the Kingdom, and followers of that Righteousness which alone can give final entrance into it.1 [Note: W. L. Walker, The Cross and The Kingdom, 241.]

The Blood of the Covenant

Literature

Barry (A.), The Atonement of Christ, 59.

Brown (C. J.), The Word of Life, 86.

Hammond (J.), The Forgiveness of Sins, 91.

Hoare (J. G.), The Foundation Stone of Christian Faith, 199.

Horton (R. F.), The Teaching of Jesus, 109.

Ives (E. J.), The Pledges of His Love, 91.

Kuegele (F.), Country Sermons, New Ser., i. 109.

McGarvey (J. W.), Sermons, 56.

Maclaren (A.), Expositions: St. Matthew xviii.xxviii., 243.

Moody (D. L.), Sermons, Addresses, and Prayers, 156.

Salmon (G.), The Reign of Law, 37.

Smith (D.), The Feast of the Covenant, 41.

Spurgeon (C. H.), Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, xxxiii. (1887), No. 1971.

Stewart (E. A.), The City Pulpit, iv. 25.

Vaughan (C. J.), Liturgy and Worship of the Church of England, 225.

Wheeler (W. C.), Sermons and Addresses, 138.

Church Times, July 2, 1909 (F. G. Irving).

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

my: Exo 24:7, Exo 24:8, Lev 17:11, Jer 31:31, Zec 9:11, Mar 14:24, Luk 22:19, 1Co 11:25, Heb 9:14-22, Heb 10:4-14, Heb 13:20

shed: Mat 20:28, Rom 5:15, Rom 5:19, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Col 1:20, Heb 9:22, Heb 9:28, 1Jo 2:2, Rev 7:9, Rev 7:14

Reciprocal: Lev 3:17 – blood Num 15:5 – General Deu 32:14 – blood 2Sa 23:17 – the blood Psa 50:5 – made Isa 42:6 – and give Isa 49:8 – give thee Dan 9:27 – confirm Joh 2:3 – they wanted 1Co 15:3 – Christ 2Co 3:6 – the new Gal 1:4 – gave Gal 3:13 – redeemed Heb 5:7 – when Heb 7:22 – of a Heb 8:8 – a new Heb 9:20 – This Heb 10:3 – a remembrance Heb 12:24 – covenant 1Pe 1:19 – with 1Jo 5:6 – blood Rev 5:9 – and hast

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

6:28

Blood of the New Testament. Under the Old Testament the blood that was shed was that of beasts, but the blood of the New was that of the Lamb of God. Shed for many. None but the Jews received the benefit of the blood shed in the animal sacrifices, while the blood of Christ offers benefits to the whole world (Rom 3:25; 1Jn 2:2), which includes Jews and Gentiles without distinction.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 26:28. For this is my blood of the covenant. The wine, poured-out, is a symbol of the blood of Christ shed for us. Both here and in Mark the word new is omitted by the best authorities, though it occurs in the accounts of Luke and Paul. It was still the same covenant, though new. Hence as the old covenant forbade the drinking of blood, it could not be commanded here in a literal sense. As Moses (Exo 24:8) sprinkled blood upon the people and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, our Lord points directly to the shedding of His blood on the cross as the blood of the covenant. He thus comforted His disciples by explaining His death to them, and we can find no blessing in it apart from this explanation.

Which is shed (or being shed) for many unto remission of sins. Our Lord here declares, with reference to His own death, that it was an actual dying for others, to the end that their sins might be pardoned. That death for many is the ground of the forgiveness of each; the partaking of the cup signifies our belief that He thus died for us; the seal of the covenant assuring our believing souls of forgiveness. Both bread and wine set forth Christ in us, as well as Christ for us. The blood is a symbol of life; the wine, the emblem of Christs blood, is drunk, to signify also our new life through the blood of Christ, just as the eating of the bread sets forth nourishment derived from Christ, whose body has been broken for us. The central fact is the atoning death of Christ, which we commemorate; the present blessing is the assurance conveyed by visible signs, that we receive, truly though spiritually, Christ, with all His benefits, and are nourished by His life into life eternal. The word many seems to hint at the communion of believers with one another.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 28

The new testament; the new covenant in the gospel. The Mosaic dispensation was the old covenant.–Remission of sins; release both from the power and from the penalties of sin.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

26:28 {o} For this is my blood of the {p} new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

(o) That is, this cup or wine is my blood sacramentally, as in Geneva “Lu 22:20”.

(p) Or covenant, that is to say, by which the new league and covenant is made, for in the making of leagues they used the pouring of wine and shedding of blood.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Jesus revealed that the sacrificial death He was about to die would ratify (make valid) a covenant (Gr. diatheke) with His people. Similarly the sacrificial death of animals originally ratified the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants with them (Gen. Gen 15:9-10; Exo 24:8). In all cases, blood symbolized the life of the substitute sacrifice (cf. Lev 17:11). Jeremiah had prophesied that God would make a New Covenant with His people in the future (Jer 31:31-34; Jer 32:37-40; cf. Exo 24:8; Luk 22:20). When Jesus died, His blood ratified that covenant. This meal memorialized the ratification of that covenant. Messiah saved His people from their sins by His sacrificial death (cf. Mat 1:21). The resulting relationship between God and His people is a covenant relationship.

"It appears, then, that Jesus understands the covenant he is introducing to be the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecies and the antitype of the Sinai covenant [cf. Exo 24:8]. His sacrifice is thus foretold both in redemption history and in the prophetic word. The Exodus becomes a ’type’ of a new and greater deliverance; and as the people of God in the OT prospectively celebrated in the first Passover their escape from Egypt, anticipating their arrival in the Promised Land, so the people of God here prospectively celebrate their deliverance from sin and bondage, anticipating the coming kingdom . . ." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 538.]

The Greek preposition translated "on behalf of" or "for" is peri. Mark used the preposition hyper, also translated "on behalf of" or "for" (Mar 14:24). Both Greek words imply substitution, though the force of peri is more on the fact that Jesus died for us. The force of hyper is that He died both for us and in our place. [Note: Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 291.] The "many" for whom Christ died includes everyone (cf. Mat 20:28; Isa 53:11-12). Evidently Jesus used "many" in its Semitic sense to contrast with His one all-sufficient sacrifice (cf. Rom 5:15-19; Heb 9:26-28; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:12; Heb 10:14). [Note: See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "polloi," by J. Jeremiah , 6:543-45.] Jesus’ death provides the basis for God to forgive sinners. The phrase "for forgiveness of sins" goes back to Jer 31:34 where forgiveness of sins is one of the blessings of the New Covenant. There are many allusions to the Suffering Servant in this verse (cf. Isa 42:6; Isa 49:8; Isa_52:13 to Isa_53:12).

Jeremiah predicted that God would make a New Covenant "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer 31:31). This is a reference to the nation of Israel. Therefore the New Covenant would be a covenant with Israel particularly (but not exclusively). Jeremiah and Ezekiel predicted many blessings that would come to Israel under the New Covenant. The Jews would experience regeneration (Jer 31:33), forgiveness of sins (Jer 31:34), other spiritual blessings (Jer 31:33-34; Jer 32:38-40), and regathering as a nation (Jer 32:37). Jeremiah also prophesied that this covenant would be everlasting (Jer 32:40) and that Israel would enjoy safety and prosperity in the Promised Land (Jer 32:37; Eze 34:25-31). Ezekiel added that God would dwell forever with Israel in His sanctuary (Eze 37:26-28).

Even though Jesus ratified the New Covenant when He died on the cross, the blessings that will come to Israel did not begin then. They will begin when Jesus returns and establishes His kingdom on the earth. However the church enters into some of the blessing of the New Covenant now. [Note: Cf. Kelly, p. 491; Scofield, The Scofield . . ., pp. 1297-98, footnote 1.] The Apostle Paul wrote of Christians serving under the New Covenant (2Co_3:1 to 2Co_6:10; Gal 4:21-31; cf. 1Co 11:25). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews also spoke to Christians of presently enjoying benefits of the New Covenant (Heb_7:1 to Heb_10:18).

The New Covenant is similar to a last will and testament. When Jesus died, the provisions of His will went into effect. Immediately all people began to profit from His death. For example, the forgiveness of sins and the possession of the Holy Spirit become the inheritance of everyone who trusts in Him, Jew and Gentile alike. However those provisions of Jesus’ "will" having to do with Israel as His particular focus of blessing will not take effect until the nation turns to Him in repentance at His second coming. Thus the church partakes in the benefits of the New Covenant even though God made it with Israel particularly.

"The church’s relationship to the new covenant is parallel in certain respects to its connection with the kingdom promises of Israel. The church is constituted, blessed, and directed by the same Person who shall bring about the literal Jewish kingdom. It also will reign with Christ during the millennial age. In a parallel manner, the church participates in the benefits of the new covenant. Therefore, in instituting the new covenant, Christ makes provisions for this covenant to include the present program of the church as well as the future age of Israel." [Note: Toussaint, Behold the . . ., p. 303.]

Amillenarians and postmillenarians view the relationship of the church to the New Covenant differently. They believe the church replaces Israel in God’s plan. [Note: E.g., Carr, p. 291.] The only way they can explain how the church fulfills all the promises in Jeremiah and Ezekiel is to take them non-literally. Yet the Apostle Paul revealed that God is not finished with "Israel;" it has a future in God’s plan (Rom 11:26). It is very helpful to remember that every reference to Israel in the New Testament can and does refer to the physical descendants of Jacob.

Some premillenarians believe that the church has no relationship to the New Covenant that Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied. [Note: E.g., Darby, 3:281; Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:325; L. Laurenson, Messiah, the Prince, pp. 187-88; and John R. Master, "The New Covenant," in Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110.] They see two new covenants, one with Israel that Jesus will ratify when He returns and one with the church that He ratified when He died. Most premillenarians, including myself, reject this view because everything said about the New Covenant can be explained adequately with only one New Covenant.

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