Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 26:27-29

"And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father`s kingdom." — Matthew 26:27-29 (ASV)

Previously, the discussion concerned the institution of a new Sacrament with respect to the Lord’s Body; here, it concerns the institution of the same Sacrament with respect to the Lord’s Blood. Regarding this, the Evangelist does two things:

1. Christ’s actions are related.
2. His words are related, where it is said, Drink you all of this.

Concerning the first part (Christ’s actions), three further actions are related:

1. He took the chalice.
2. He gave thanks.
3. He gave it to His disciples.

Therefore, the Evangelist says, And taking the chalice, etc., by which it is signified that the Sacrament was not instituted to be performed under one species, but under two species.

And what is the reason for this? One reason is that there are three things in this Sacrament: one is that which is the sacrament only, another is the reality only, and still another is the sacrament and the reality. The sacrament only consists of the species of bread and wine. The reality only is the spiritual effect. The reality and the sacrament is Christ’s Body contained in this Sacrament.

Therefore, if we consider the sacrament only, it is very fitting that the Body be signified by the species of bread, and that the Blood be signified by the species of wine, because they are signified as indicating spiritual refreshment. Refreshment properly consists in food and drink; therefore, etc. Likewise, if the Sacrament is considered as a reality and a sacrament, it is fitting in that this Sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s Passion.

And it cannot signify this better than in this way, as the Blood is signified as poured out and separated from the Body. Likewise, the Sacrament is very fitting when it is considered as the reality only, because blood pertains to the soul—not because the blood is the soul, but because life is preserved by blood. Thus, it is signified that although this Sacrament is for the salvation of the faithful, the Body is offered for the health of the body, but the Blood is offered for the health of the soul.

Come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you (Proverbs 9:5), because this refreshment is in the bread and wine. Similarly, another reason is that the entire Christ is contained under the species of the bread. What, therefore, is the necessity for the blood to be by itself?

For this reason, what was said above must be taken in the sense that one thing is directly there by the power of the sacrament, and another thing is there from natural concomitance. Christ’s body is contained under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, but the blood is there by concomitance. But as to the blood, the contrary is true, because Christ’s blood is there directly by the power of the sacrament, but His body is there by concomitance.

Therefore, if the sacrament had been celebrated at the time Christ’s blood was poured out onto the ground, the blood would only have been there, apart from the body. Thus, because certain men did not understand these things, they said that the forms of consecration of the bread and wine are connected. They therefore say that when the body is consecrated, the blood is not there until the wine has been consecrated. But this is not so, because if a priest were to die before he consecrated the wine, both Christ’s body and blood would be in the host.

Likewise, the Evangelist says, Taking the chalice, and he does not say, “Taking the wine”; for that reason, some have said that it should be done with water. But this is excluded, because Christ continues by saying, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine, etc. Secondly, it is evident that there was wine mixed with water.

And the reason for this concerns the Sacrament, because it must be celebrated as the Lord instituted it. In hot climates, it is customary that wine is not drunk except with water; therefore, it must not be believed that He prepared the Sacrament with pure wine. It is also fitting regarding what is contained in the chalice, because this Sacrament is commemorative of the Lord’s Passion; for from Christ’s side blood and water came out, as it is stated in John 19. Moreover, water and wine are present to signify the effect of the Sacrament, and this happens in two ways, thereby producing in us the effect of Christ’s Passion.

Now the effect of Christ’s Passion is twofold: to wash and to redeem. He redeems us by His Blood: You have redeemed us to God, in your blood (Revelation 5:9). Likewise, He washes away our stains of sin: He washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5). And these things were necessary so that He might wash and redeem us. The washing is signified by the water, and the redemption is signified by wine. Likewise, by water the people are signified: Many waters, many people (Revelation 17:1, 15). And by this Sacrament the people are united to Christ; therefore, this mixture signifies the people being united to Christ.

But what becomes of that water? Some say that it remains. Others say that it is converted into wine, because when a little is added, the species of the water is changed, and so all the water is converted into wine. In this way, it pertains to a mystery, because the unity of the Church is contained in this mystery.

Likewise, in that He says, Taking, it is signified that Christ underwent His Passion voluntarily; thus: I will take the chalice of salvation; and I will call upon the name of the Lord (Psalms 115:13).

Similarly, He gave thanks. And for what did He give thanks? It was for two things: for a sign and for something signified. He gave thanks for a sign, because He gave thanks for the effect; He gave thanks for something signified, because He gave thanks for His Passion. In doing this, it is signified that we not only should give thanks for good things, but also for bad or adverse things: Giving thanks in all things (1 Thessalonians 5:18); To them that love God all things work together for good (Romans 8:28).

Moreover, He gave thanks for the institution of this Sacrament, because He was doing this by divine power; thus, it is said in John 5:30: I cannot of myself do anything. Therefore, He gave thanks to God the Father: I give you thanks that you have heard me (John 11:41). In this, an example is given to us that if Christ, who is equal to the Father, gave thanks, then we ourselves should give thanks.

Likewise, He gave thanks for the effect, because the effect is the salvation of the whole world. And He was only able to do this by His divinity: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:64).

He continues, And he gave to them, so that they might receive the Sacrament. By this, He signifies that the fruit of His Passion should be ministered by some men to others. Thus, the Apostles can be compared to the offspring of an eagle, concerning whom it is said: As the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them (Deuteronomy 32:11). Then He enjoins the use of the Sacrament in three ways:

1. He relates its use.
2. He relates the words of consecration.
3. He foretells His Resurrection.

He says, therefore: Drink you all of this; Drink, and be inebriated, my dearly beloved (Song of Solomon 5:1). Thus, it is signified that Christians can communicate in the appropriate place and time.

This is my blood, etc. These are the words of consecration. Observe that in these words there is a difference from those that the Church uses. The Church adds: “This is the chalice.” Likewise, where He says, Of the new testament, the Church adds, “Of the new and eternal testament.” Moreover, where He says, Which shall be shed for many, the Church adds, “Which shall be shed for you,” etc. How, therefore, does the Church have this form? It should be said, as Dionysius says, that it was not the intention of the Evangelists to pass on the forms of the sacraments but to guard them as secrets; thus, they only intended to tell the history. From where, then, does the Church have them? She has them from the institution of the Apostles. Thus, Paul said: The rest I will set in order, when I come (1 Corinthians 11:34).

But there is a question: Why does He say, This is my body, or This is my blood? Why does He not say, ‘This is converted into My Body, or into My Blood,’ etc.? The reason is twofold. The first reason is that the forms of the sacraments should signify what they effect. What they effect is that the bread is converted into Christ’s Body and the wine into Christ’s Blood; therefore, the final effect should be signified. Thus, it should be signified that this is His Body; not, however, that this is converted into His Body.

In this form, however, there is something similar to the Old Testament, but also something different. It is similar in that, as it is stated in Exodus 24:8, when Moses read the Law, he sacrificed calves, offered the blood, and said, This is the blood of the covenant of the Lord. In this manner, this blood was offered for the salvation of the people. In Hebrews 9 it is said, The high priest alone, once a year: not without blood, which he offereth for his own and the people’s ignorance. He shows, however, the difference in four things.

The differences are as follows:

1. First, there is a difference in that the latter blood is of calves, but this Blood is Christ’s; thus, this Blood is efficacious for remitting sin: For if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13).
2. Second, the latter was called the blood of the testament, but this Blood is called the testament itself. A testament may be taken in a broad sense or in a strict sense. It is taken broadly for any covenant made, because it used to be that when any covenant was made, witnesses were summoned. A testament is spoken of in a strict sense when it is read at death, according to what the Apostle says, that a testament is of force upon the death of the testator. The word applies in both ways here, because there was a pact, and it was made with blood—for in ancient times they displayed blood when making an alliance of peace, and so it was called the blood of the covenant. Moreover, in that a testament is said to refer to the dead, in this way, there was a certain pact between God and men in both the Old and New Law, but they were different. The first pact pertained to temporal things, namely, the pact of the Old Testament, as it is evident that God promised them the land of the Amorites; therefore, the testament was old, because men were not renewed but rather made older. The latter testament, however, pertained to heavenly things. Thus, it is said: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 4:17). Therefore, He says: For this is my blood of the new testament, meaning it is dedicated to a new testament, in which we should have confidence: We have a confidence by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:19). Likewise, the term testament befits one made at death, because Christ’s death confirmed the promise.
3. Third, another difference between the Old and New Testament is that this form adds, “Of the new and eternal testament,” which can refer either to the eternal inheritance or to Christ, who is eternal.
4. Fourth, another difference is that in the previously mentioned passage (Exodus 24:8) it is stated: “Which the Lord hath made with you.” Thus, the former testament was limited only to the Jews, but this testament is also for the Gentiles: He shall sprinkle, meaning with His Blood, many nations (Isaiah 52:15). This is For many, and indeed for all, because if its sufficiency is considered, He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). But if we consider its effect, it only has its effect on those who are saved, and this is the fault of men. The Church, however, adds, “For you,” meaning the Apostles, because they are the ministers of this Blood, and through them it is spread to the Gentiles. Furthermore, it is said, Unto remission of sins, because the blood of the old testament could not remit sins.

And I say to you. Here their consolation is related, according to Chrysostom. Because He had made mention of the shedding of His Blood, by which His Passion is signified, He therefore comforts them and foretells His glory. Chrysostom expounds the passage in this way: the Lord had foretold His Passion, and therefore He wishes to make them rejoice. I will not drink from now on of this fruit of the vine, meaning of this wine, until that day, etc. He calls this kingdom the kingdom of resurrection. At that time He receives a new kingdom, meaning in a new way. That He will drink with them appears in Acts 10.

But why is it said that He will eat in a new way? It is because He ate in a different manner before His Resurrection than He did after it. Before His Resurrection, He ate out of necessity, but afterwards, He did not eat out of necessity but to show the truth of His Resurrection.

Jerome says the following, namely, that the nation of the Jews is signified by a vineyard: The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel (Isaiah 5:7); I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed (Jeremiah 2:21).

And I say to you, I will not drink from now on of this fruit of the vine, meaning My soul will not rejoice concerning this nation, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. His kingdom signifies the existing Church. He says new, meaning renewed by faith, because when they are converted, then I will rejoice with them, for many were converted and many will be converted.

Remigius expounds this passage as follows: he says that this should be referred to the Paschal ceremonies, meaning I will not again celebrate ceremonies of this kind until the establishment of the Church, when I will rejoice over the renewal of the Church.

Augustine expounds the passage thus: “In that He says new, it is opposed to the old.” Now, this old condition is twofold: there is the old condition of punishment and guilt, and these are derived from Adam, as it is stated in Romans 6. Christ had the old condition of punishment but not the old condition of guilt.

Thus, His single old condition undid our twofold old condition. He says, therefore: I will not drink of the old condition of punishment, until, etc., He would put away that Body and assume a glorified Body at His Resurrection. He promises the Apostles that they also will assume glorified bodies, and He indicates that their bodies will not be of a different nature, because the Body that He will assume will be a Body the same in nature, but different in glory.