The pt 5
As with finding the donkey in 21:1–3, vv. 18–19 present tantalizing ambiguities. Is this careful planning or supernatural insight on Jesus’ part—or some of each? Matthew abbreviates the story and refers simply “to a certain man.” The Greek reads, literally, pros ton deina (to such-and-such a man). The additional information of
The disciples recognize that Jesus may well have prophetic insight into their own shortcomings. So each one wonders if he himself will somehow succumb and become the perpetrator (v. 22). Yet the question “surely not I?” is phrased so as hopefully to elicit a negative response. Matthew uses the identical language as in 17:23 (a form of lypeō + sphodra) to highlight their intense grief. Only Matthew adds the address “Lord,” heightening the irony of betrayal.
Although Matthew does not explicitly mention his departure, Judas obviously had to leave at some point in order to reappear with the crowds in v. 47. But he does so with full knowledge that Jesus knows what he is plotting. He proceeds anyway.
Jesus now invests the bread with new meaning. It foreshadows his body figuratively broken and literally killed in his upcoming death.
in Aramaic these sentences would have been spoken without a linking verb (“is”), as simply, this, my body and this, my blood. As frequently elsewhere, Jesus is creating a vivid object lesson. The bread symbolizes (represents, stands for, or points to) his crucifixion in some otherwise unspecified sense.
again Jesus adds new meaning. As they all drink (the “all” refers to all the disciples, not to all of the wine!), he proclaims that the cup stands for his blood about to be shed in his death on the cross. The “blood of the covenant” harks back to
This is the third of four cups of wine drunk at various stages throughout the evening festivities. It was probably a common cup passed around for all to drink. “Offered” is the same verb as “gave” in v. 27 and does not imply that drinking was optional. Each of the four cups was linked to one line of Exod 6:6–7a. This one tied in with God’s promise, “I will redeem you,”
The covenant language implies the creation of a community, now to be constituted of those who in their eating and drinking identify with the benefits of Jesus’ sacrificial death. This “true Israel” stands over against the natural Israel of the old covenant
Peter’s impulsive denial of Jesus is obviously not as treacherous as Judas’s premeditated betrayal, but Jesus has already said that any who disown him “before men” he will disown before his Heavenly Father (10:33). So the difference between Peter and Judas lies primarily in their subsequent behavior. One may either deny or betray Christ and be forgiven if one genuinely repents
