rwp - Matthew:26:17-30

rwp@Matthew:26:17 @{To eat the passover} (\phagein to pascha\). 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 strkjv@John: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:13:1f.,27; strkjv@18:28; strkjv@19:14,31|) rightly interpreted agree with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew:26:17,20; strkjv@Mark:14:12,17; strkjv@Luke:22:7,14|) 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 (\hetoimasmen\) after \theleis\ with \hina\. For the asyndeton see Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 935.

rwp@Matthew:26:18 @{To such a man} (\pros ton deina\). The only instance in the N.T. of this old Attic idiom. The papyri show it for "Mr. X" and the modern Greek keeps it. Jesus may have indicated the man's name. Mark (Mark:14:13|) and Luke (Luke:22:10|) describe him as a man bearing a pitcher of water. It may have been the home of Mary the mother of John Mark. {I keep the passover at thy house} (\pros se poi to pascha\). Futuristic present indicative. The use of \pros se\ for "at thy house" is neat Greek of the classic period. Evidently there was no surprise in this home at the command of Jesus. It was a gracious privilege to serve him thus.

rwp@Matthew:26:20 @{He was sitting at meat} (\anekeito\). He was reclining, lying back on the left side on the couch with the right hand free. Jesus and the Twelve all reclined. The paschal lamb had to be eaten up entirely (Exodus:12:4,43|).

rwp@Matthew:26:21 @{One of you} (\heis ex humn\). This was a bolt from the blue for all except Judas and he was startled to know that Jesus understood his treacherous bargain.

rwp@Matthew:26:22 @{Is it I, Lord?} (\mti eg eimi, Kurie;\). The negative expects the answer No and was natural for all save Judas. But he had to bluff it out by the same form of question (verse 25|). The answer of Jesus, {Thou hast said} (\su eipas\), means Yes.

rwp@Matthew:26:23 @{He that dipped} (\ho embapsas\). They all dipped their hands, having no knives, forks, or spoons. The aorist participle with the article simply means that the betrayer is the one who dips his hand in the dish (\en ti trublii\) or platter with the broth of nuts and raisins and figs into which the bread was dipped before eating. It is plain that Judas was not recognized by the rest as indicated by what Jesus has said. This language means that one of those who had eaten bread with him had violated the rights of hospitality by betraying him. The Arabs today are punctilious on this point. Eating one's bread ties your hands and compels friendship. But Judas knew full well as is shown in verse 25| though the rest apparently did not grasp it.

rwp@Matthew:26:24 @{Good were it for that man} (\kalon n auti\). Conclusion of second-class condition even though \an\ is not expressed. It is not needed with verbs of obligation and necessity. There are some today who seek to palliate the crime of Judas. But Jesus here pronounces his terrible doom. And Judas heard it and went on with his hellish bargain with the Sanhedrin. Apparently Judas went out at this stage (John:13:31|).

rwp@Matthew:26:26 @{And blessed and brake it} (\eulogsas eklasen\). Special "Grace" in the middle of the passover meal, "as they were eating," for the institution of the Supper. Jesus broke one of the passover wafers or cakes that each might have a piece, not as a symbol of the breaking of his body as the Textus Receptus has it in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:24|. The correct text there has only to \huper humn\ without \klmenon\. As a matter of fact the body of Jesus was not "broken" (John:19:33|) as John expressly states. {This is my body} (\touto estin to sma mou\). The bread as a symbol _represents_ the body of Jesus offered for us, "a beautifully simple, pathetic, and poetic symbol of his death" (Bruce). But some have made it "run into fetish worship" (Bruce). Jesus, of course, does not mean that the bread actually becomes his body and is to be worshipped. The purpose of the memorial is to remind us of his death for our sins.

rwp@Matthew:26:28 @{The Covenant} (\ts diathks\). The adjective \kains\ in Textus Receptus is not genuine. The covenant is an agreement or contract between two (\dia, duo, thke\, from \tithmi\). It is used also for will (Latin, _testamentum_) which becomes operative at death (Hebrews:9:15-17|). Hence our _New Testament_. Either covenant or will makes sense here. Covenant is the idea in strkjv@Hebrews:7:22; strkjv@8:8| and often. In the Hebrew to make a covenant was to cut up the sacrifice and so ratify the agreement (Genesis:15:9-18|). Lightfoot argues that the word \diathke\ means covenant in the N.T. except in strkjv@Hebrews:9:15-17|. Jesus here uses the solemn words of strkjv@Exodus: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 strkjv@Jeremiah:31; strkjv@Hebrews:8|. {Which is shed for many} (\to peri polln ekchunnomenon\). A prophetic present passive participle. The act is symbolized by the ordinance. Cf. the purpose of Christ expressed in strkjv@20:28|. There \anti\ and here \peri\. {Unto remission of sins} (\eis aphesin hamartin\). 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.

rwp@Matthew:26:29 @{When I drink it new with you} (\hotan auto pin meth' humn kaimon\). This language rather implies that Jesus himself partook of the bread and the wine, though it is not distinctly stated. In the Messianic banquet it is not necessary to suppose that Jesus means the language literally, "the fruit of the vine." Deissmann (_Bible Studies_, pp. 109f.) gives an instance of \genma\ used of the vine in a papyrus 230 B.C. The language here employed does not make it obligatory to employ wine rather than pure grape juice if one wishes the other.

rwp@Matthew:26:30 @{Sang a hymn} (\humnsantes\). The _Hallel_, part of strkjv@Psalms:115-118|. But apparently they did not go out at once to the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus tarried with them in the Upper Room for the wonderful discourse and prayer in strkjv@John:14-17|. They may have gone out to the street after strkjv@John:14:31|. It was no longer considered obligatory to remain in the house after the passover meal till morning as at the start (Exodus:12:22|). Jesus went out to Gethsemane, the garden of the agony, outside of Jerusalem, toward the Mount of Olives.