Luke 22:20

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Likewise also the cup after supper - not after the Lord's Supper, as if the taking of the Bread and of the cup in it were separated so far as that; but after the paschal supper, and consequently immediately after the distribution of the bread. The accounts of Matthew and of Mark would seem to imply that He gave thanks on taking the cup, as well as with the bread; but here, at any rate, and in the most authoritative account, perhaps, which we have, in 1 Corinthians 11:23, etc., that is not said.

Saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. In Matthew 26:28, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." In 1 Corinthians 11:25, "This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Most critics now maintain that the word here rendered "testament" [ diatheekee (G1242)] should be rendered covenant, not only here but wherever else it occurs in the New Testament; being used in the Old Testament constantly by the Septuagint translators for the, well-known Hebrew word signifying 'covenant [ bªriyt (H1285)], which never signifies 'testament.' Here, in particular, there is a manifest allusion to Exodus 24:8, "Behold, the blood of the covenant [ daam (H1818) habªriyt (H1285)] which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words," Now it is beyond doubt that 'covenant' is the fundamental idea, and that in the Old Testament the word is correctly rendered "covenant." But let it be observed first, that 'testament' or 'will' is the proper classical sense of the Greek word, and 'disposition' or 'covenant' but a secondary sense; and next, that in Hebrews 9:15, etc., the sense of 'testament' appears to be so obviously what the apostle reasons on, that to exclude it there, and restrict the meaning to 'covenant,' can only be made to yield the harshest sense.

But the true harmony of both senses of the word, and how, in the case of Christ's death, the one runs into the other, will be seen, not by any criticism on the word, but by reflecting on the thing. If it be true that by 'covenant,' or eternal divine arrangement, all the blessings of salvation become the rightful possession of believers solely in virtue of Christ's death, does not this almost irresistibly suggest to every reflecting mind the idea of a testator's death as a most true and exalted conception of the virtue of it? What can be a more natural view of the principle on which the fruits of Christ's death become ours than that of a testamentary disposition? Then, observe how near to this idea of His death our Lord Himself came in what He said, when the Greeks sought to "see Jesus" on the eve of His last Passover, "The hour is come when the Son of man should be glorified: Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (John 13:23). Observe too, His mode of expression twice over at the supper table, "I appoint [ diatithemai (G1303)] unto you, as My Father appointed [ dietheto (G1303)] unto a kingdom" (Luke 22:29); "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you" (see the note at John 14:27): and it will be seen, we think how each, idea suggests the other. While that of 'covenant' is confessedly the fundamental one, that of 'testament' is accessory or illustrative only. Yet the one is as real as the other, and presents a phase of the truth exceeding precious. In this view Bengel substantially concurs, and Stier entirely.