Matthew Chapter 26 verse 28 Holy Bible

Matthew 26 : 28 Bible Verse Songs

• O Come To The Altar by Phil Wickham + Mack Brock
• Overwhelmed by Life Center Worship
• Cast Your Burden by Gateway Worship
• Your Royal Blood by Rend Collective
• Broken And Spilled Out by Gaither Vocal Band
• I Am Your Beloved by Bethel Music + Jonathan David & Melissa Helser
• It Is Finished + Repentance (Romans 2:4) by Mercy Culture Worship
• It's the Blood (Matthew 26:28) by Mercy Culture Worship

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 28. - For. Yes, drink ye all hereof, for it is unspeakably precious. This (τοῦτο, as before, ver. 26) is my blood. This which I here give you. The blood separated from the body represents Christ's death by violence; it was also the sign of the ratification of a covenant. Of the new testament; διαθήκης: covenant. The adjective"new" is omitted by some good manuscripts and modern editors, but it gives the sense intended. The Vulgate has, novi testamenti. The old covenant between God and his people had been ratified at Sinai by the blood of many victims (Exodus 24:5-8; Hebrews 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:15, etc.); the blood of Christ shed upon the cross ratifies "the new or Christian covenant to the world and the Church, and the same blood sacramentally applied ratifies the covenant individually to each Christian" (Sadler). The evangelical covenant supersedes the Judaic, even as the sacrifice of Christ fulfils and supersedes the Levitical sacrifices. Which is shed (is being shed) for many. The Vulgate has effundetur, in reference to the crucifixion of the morrow; but this is tampering with the text. Rather, by using the present tense, the Lord signifies that his death is certain - that the sacrifice has already begun, that the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8) was now offering the eternal sacrifice. The whole ordinance is significant of the completion of the atonement. "Many" here is equivalent to "all." Redemption is universal, though all men do not accept the offer (see on ch. 20:28). Even Calvin says, "Non partem mundi tantum designat, sed totum humanum genus." For the remission of sins. "For without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22); "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). The sacrifices of the Law, the blood of bulls and goats, could not take away sin; at most they gave a ritual and ceremonial purification. But what the Mosaic Law could not effect was accomplished by the precious blood of Christ, who offered himself a spotless and perfect Victim unto God. This is our Lord's most complete announcement of the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice, which is appropriated by faith in the reception of his precious blood. St. Paul adds, "This do ye (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε), as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me [εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, 'for my commemoration']." These were, of course, Christ's words spoken at the time, and are of most important bearing on what is called the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(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. Luke's 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 Jeremiah 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 (Matthew 22:20) and by St. Paul (1Corinthians 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 Lord's 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 Hebrews 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 Exodus 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" (Hebrews 12:24), and Jesus was thus the "Mediator" of the New Covenant as Moses had been of the Old (Galatians 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," Jeremiah 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. . . .