26:17–19 Shortly before the Passover meal, Jesus had told the disciples that he would be betrayed and crucified (v. 2). The chief priests are plotting to kill Jesus. Judas has provided the mechanism for his judicial murder. Yet despite his perfidy, Judas observes the Passover with Jesus. Passover observance lasts a week and is the supreme celebration of God’s covenant with Israel. It includes both public and private elements. A family, and perhaps friends, shares a private meal before the public Passover celebration. For the private meal, lambs are slain, prepared by the priests, and purchased by the people, who also purchase wine, greens, bitter herbs, and bread. A boy at the meal asks what the symbols mean, and the paterfamilias tells the story of escape from Egypt and the Lord’s covenant with Israel.
Verse 17 apparently places the last meal on the first day of the Passover, while John 13:1 and 18:28 seem to place it one day before the Passover begins. Many scholars believe the apparent discrepancy is caused by different calendars in use at the time. Others locate the chronology of John within that of the Synoptics by working through apparent discrepancies one by one (John 13:1, 27; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 36). The simplest and perhaps most attractive solution is summarized by R. T. France: “Jesus, knowing that he would be dead before the regular time for the meal, deliberately held it in secret one day early.” The sheer scope of the literature is witness to the difficulty of the question, which touches on the reliability of Scripture, not theology.
The disciples ask Jesus, their head, how he wants to observe the meal. Jesus orders them to find a certain man and tell him, “The Teacher says, ‘My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house,’” and it is so (Matt. 26:17–19). “Certain man” translates the Greek word deina, which basically means “so and so.” It avoids naming names, and if this sounds secretive, Mark 14:12–15 shows that it is. Mark records how Jesus arranged the sign of a man carrying a water jar, something men never did in that culture. The goal was to arrange a safe place for a final meal, perhaps because Jesus anticipated action by the authorities. Christian readers realize that “my time is at hand” refers to Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection (Matt. 26:18). It means the events of the day are developing according to the Father’s sovereign plan. John presents Jesus as repeatedly referring to his “hour” (John 2:4; 7:6; 12:23); here Matthew joins him.
26:20–25 With the meal in progress, Jesus declares, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me” (v. 21). The phrase “truly, I say to you” serves to underscore a solemn word (5:18; 6:2; 10:42; 17:20; 21:21). The apostles, stricken by grief, ask, “Is it I, Lord?” The Greek reads mēti egō eimi, kyrie. Grammatically, the particle mēti anticipates a negative reply: “I am not the one, am I?” Contemporary readers cannot know to what extent the disciples doubt themselves and to what extent they seek reassurance that they will be loyal. Jesus declines to identify the traitor, but insists it is one of them, an intimate who will place “his hand in the dish with me” (26:23; everyone dipped bread into common dishes of food at the Passover). Such treachery from a friend is shocking, agonizing (Pss. 41:9; 55:12–13).
The betrayal fulfills Scripture: “The Son of Man goes as it is written” (Matt. 26:24). Here Jesus completes the plan of redemption. He redeems those whose names are in the “book of life,” a book “written before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; cf. Eph. 1:3–11). In Luke, Jesus similarly says that it is necessary for him to suffer betrayal and crucifixion, and then rise, for it is “written” in the Law and the Prophets (Luke 24:7, 25–27, 44–46). So the treason is a divine necessity, fulfilling plans that precede history. Yet none of this excuses Judas, who acts as a responsible agent. Thus Jesus calls out a terrible “woe” on him. Because he betrays “the Son of Man” it would have been “better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). Judas faces eternal punishment in a signal case of one who has every reason to believe but does not. He joins the murder conspiracy against Jesus and does not repent. Therefore he will stand naked in his sin and alone at the judgment.
Perhaps thinking he has to join the others in asking, Judas echoes, “Is it I, Rabbi?” (again, this expects a negative reply; v. 25). For the original audience, Rabbi offered unambiguous respect, perhaps more than Lord (kyrios), which could merely mean “sir.” Yet for Matthew’s readers, Rabbi is a humbler title than Lord, which Christians give full weight. For Judas, Jesus is a mortal, a teacher whose cause threatens to harm Judas, who decides to desert and to get something for it.
Jesus replies, “You have said so” (“you” is emphatic). The sense is “Yes, you said it yourself.” Still, the line is mild enough that the others could miss it. A little later (v. 31), Jesus tells the disciples that they will “all fall away” that night, and they do, but these failures are not identical. Peter protests fiercely, and the others join him, since they intend to be loyal, but Judas plans to betray Jesus. When he realizes Jesus knows his plan, this awareness probably triggers a tactical shift. The authorities had planned to take Jesus after the feast (vv. 4–5), but Judas decides to act sooner.
26:26–30 As the meal continues, Jesus institutes what churches now call the Lord’s Supper. He takes some of the bread they are eating, blesses it, breaks it, and gives it to his disciples. They have already blessed and broken their bread, but Jesus is inaugurating a new sign or sacrament, so he sets it apart with thanksgiving.
The Western church has fiercely debated the meaning of the meal, especially Jesus’ statement that “this is my body” (v. 26). The question is interesting exegetically, but history and tradition drive the disputes. For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church held that the elements actually become in substance the body and blood of Christ, even if the accidents of taste and texture are unchanged (in their Aristotelian usage, an accident is a property not essential to something’s nature). In a crucial decision, the church took “this is my body” literally. The bread is Jesus’ physical body, his literal flesh and blood (inviting the charge of cannibalism). The Eucharist was believed to be a reenactment of Jesus’ sacrifice, a grace-giving miracle at the heart of the sacramental system that secured salvation for all who rightly used the means of grace, the seven sacraments.
When the Reformation criticized the sacramental system, the Lord’s Supper had to be reinterpreted. Schools of thought arose within Protestantism. In brief, the Lutherans deviated least from Catholicism, asserting that “this is my body” means Jesus is present physically—in, with, and under the elements, even though they do not become his body. The Zwinglians departed most, taking “this is my body” symbolically. Citing Luke 22:19, “Do this in remembrance of me,” they said that the elements represent Christ’s presence and that the meal is a memorial. Calvinists sought a middle ground, asserting that Jesus is really, spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper.
There are four records of Jesus’ words of institution. All four share essential elements: Jesus broke bread, offered wine, and commanded the disciples to partake. He said, “this is my body,” he mentioned a (new) covenant, and he promised an eschatological feast. The formulations of Matthew and Mark are closer to one another, as are Luke and 1 Corinthians. For example, in Matthew and Mark, Jesus says, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25). In Luke and 1 Corinthians, we read, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and the cup “is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26). Textual variations and small differences between the accounts add to the interpretive task, which will be more successful if the principles for interpretation are clear.
First, no one has access to the exact, original words. The canon has four records, and each reliably records essentials from Jesus’ speech, which might have been much longer (cf. Introduction; comment on 8:23–27). The goal is to find the genuine voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox) not the exact words (ipsissima verba), which are probably lost. Jesus normally spoke Aramaic, so that most accounts might be translations anyway. Still, the church took care to preserve Jesus’ words. Paul says he “received” them from others and “delivered” them to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23). “Received” and “delivered” denote the careful transmission of accounts.
Interpretation always begins with the context. It is a Passover meal, at which the paterfamilias would break bread, distribute it, and explain the meal. Just so, Jesus takes bread, blesses it, breaks it, says, “Take, eat,” and then explains it. If the action is typical, the explanation is not.
There is good reason to take “this is my body” metaphorically. First, Jesus commonly speaks in metaphors, even of himself. He says, “I am the vine” (John 15:5), but no one tries to pluck grapes from his body. He says, “I am the door” (John 10:9), and no one looks for hinges. The Passover liturgy includes the line, “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came from the land of Egypt” (cf. Deut. 16:3). Despite the opening “this is,” no one thinks they are literally eating the same bread that Moses’ generation ate. The disciples’ ears are attuned to metaphor, both from listening to Jesus and from their experiences of Passover. Finally, Jesus’ body is right there as he says “this is my body,” making it even harder to see how his hearers could think the bread is literally his physical body. Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 11:26 gives the sense: “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Thus “this is my body” means “this represents my body and declares the work I did in my body.” He offers his body as an atoning sacrifice, for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28).
When he takes the cup and says, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood,” the situation is the same (vv. 27–28). When the disciples see the wine and hear “this is my blood,” it is again natural for them to hear metaphor, since Jesus loves metaphor. When Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth,” and, “You are the light of the world” (5:13–14), did anyone take him literally (cf. also 9:37–38; 12:33; John 6:35; 8:12; 15:5)? The wine points to the blood Jesus will pour out on the cross. To say the “body” and “blood” are metaphorical does not commit interpreters to the Zwinglian, “memorialist” view of the sacrament. Calvinists and Lutherans take the language metaphorically but insist on the real presence of Christ, giving grace through the sacrament as it offers signs “of his good will” and “divine grace toward us.”
Finally, Jesus promises to celebrate the meal again “when I drink it new with you” when the kingdom comes in fullness (Matt. 26:29). The blessed promise of an eschatological feast has a shadow: in this age, this is Jesus’ last Passover with his disciples. At length, Matthew says, a hymn closes the meal. The disciples leave Jerusalem and travel the short distance to the Mount of Olives, just east of the city (v. 30).