Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 26:28

"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins." — Matthew 26:28 (ASV)

For this is my blood of the new testament — A better translation is, this is My blood of the Covenant, as the best manuscripts omit the word “new” here and in Mark’s Gospel. The word was probably introduced into later manuscripts to bring the text into harmony with Luke’s report.

Assuming the word “new” was actually spoken by our Lord, we can understand why it might have been omitted by some reporters or transcribers whose attention had not been specially called to the great prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31–34. That prophecy, however, was certain to have a prominent place in the minds of those who had come into contact with the line of thought in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as Luke must have done (Hebrews 8:9). Therefore, we should not be surprised to find it in the report of the words given by him (Luke 22:20) and by Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25). If we accept the other alternative, it would still be true that the covenant of which our Lord spoke was ipso facto new, and was therefore the one of which Jeremiah had spoken. The insertion of the word, considering the general freedom of the Gospels in reporting our Lord’s discourses, was a legitimate way of emphasizing that fact.

In analyzing these words, we note several points:

1. The word “covenant” is the best equivalent for the Greek word in nearly every instance (with the possible exception of Hebrews 9:16). The popular use of “New Testament” for the collected writings of the apostolic age makes its use here and in the parallel passages highly unsuitable.
2. The phrase “blood of the covenant” is an obvious reference to the events in Exodus 24:4–8. The blood that the Son of Man was about to shed was to be for the true Israel of God what the blood Moses sprinkled on the people had been for the nation of Israel. It was the true “blood of sprinkling” (Hebrews 12:24), and Jesus was thus the “Mediator” of the New Covenant as Moses had been of the Old (Galatians 3:19).
3. Insofar as this was the sign of a new covenant, it turned the disciples’ thoughts to the one of which Jeremiah had spoken. The essence of that covenant was to be the inward working of the divine law, which had previously been presented to the conscience as an external standard of duty: “I will put My law in their inward parts” (Jeremiah 31:33). This new covenant would also bring a truer knowledge of God and, through that knowledge, the forgiveness of iniquity. The disciples were told that all this would be brought about through the sacrifice of Christ’s death.

Which is shed for many — The participle here is in the present tense: which is being shed. This presents the immediate future to the disciples as if it were actually happening before their eyes. As in Matthew 20:28, our Lord uses the term “for many” as equivalent to the universal “for all.” Paul’s language in 1 Timothy 2:6 shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how the words “for many” were interpreted.

For the remission of sins — From the beginning, this had been the substance of the gospel our Lord preached, both to the people collectively (Luke 4:16–19) and to individual souls (Matthew 9:2; Luke 7:48). What was new in these words was the connection of forgiveness with the shedding of His blood as the means of obtaining it.

Returning to the command in Matthew 26:27, “Drink from it, all of you,” we can see an allusion to the mysterious words of John 6:53–54, just as we did with the bread. In the contrast between the “sprinkling” in Exodus 24:6 and the “drinking” commanded here, we may legitimately see a symbol. It represents not only the participation of believers in the life of Christ, symbolized by the blood, but also the difference between the outward character of the Old Covenant and the inward nature of the New.

It is perhaps also worth noting that drinking together from a cup of human blood had come to be seen as a sacrament of the closest and most permanent union. As such, it was chosen by evildoers—like Catiline (Sallust, Catiline, ch. 22)—to bind their partners in guilt more closely to themselves. In contrast, the cup our Lord gave His disciples, though filled with wine, was to be for them the pledge of a union in holiness as deep and true as that which bound others in a league of evil.

We cannot move on, however, without dwelling for a moment on the value of these words as evidence. For eighteen centuries—without any traceable interruption, even for a single week—the Christian Church has met to break bread and drink wine. In all its many divisions, under every conceivable variety of form and ritual, it has done so not as a social feast (the limited quantity of bread and wine must have excluded that idea from a very early date, if not from the beginning), but as a commemorative act. The Church has always referred its observance to the command recorded here, and no other explanation has ever been suggested.

Once this is granted, we find proof of divine foreknowledge in our Lord’s words, spoken at the very time He addressed the guilt of the traitor and His own approaching death. He knew that His true work was beginning, not ending. He knew He was giving a commandment that would last to the end of time and that He had obtained a greater honor than Moses as the Mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews 3:3; Hebrews 8:6).