Rev Stephen MacDonald preached this sermon, titled “The New Covenant Meal” at Benalla Presbyterian Church on 15th Feb, 2026. The text preached upon was Matt 26:17-30. The sermon stands out immediately for its doctrinal clarity and confessional substance. In a denominational climate where preaching seems to be too easily drifting towards therapeutic or psychological reflections, this sermon was unapologetically theological. It was Christ-centered, covenantally structured, and saturated with Scripture. Judas’ betrayal was not reduced to relational trauma or a bad mistake, but was correctly framed within divine foreknowledge and redemptive purpose. The bread and cup were not sentimental tokens, they were presented as covenant signs grounded in Exodus, fulfilled in Christ, and sealed in blood. Perseverance of the saints was articulated clearly. Substitutionary atonement was explicit. Eschatological hope was not vague but grounded in the promise of the coming feast in the Father’s kingdom. The sermon was exegetically faithful and avoided unwarranted imposition upon the text. In short, this sermon was recognizably Reformed preaching in the way it proclaimed Christ rather than self-improvement.

And so I hesitate to comment further about this sermon, but I confess I had trouble keeping up with the pace of the sermon. Was this sermon trying to do too much? Or to put it another way, was admiration of Christ the dominant sentiment being aimed for whilst a fear of the Lord was played down?

Let me explain. Within one sermon the hearer was asked to track: Judas’ betrayal, divine omniscience, perseverance of the saints, Psalm 41, Isaiah 53, John 10, Romans 8, Exodus 24, covenant with Adam, covenant with David, Passover typology, substitutionary atonement, the new covenant and the eschatological hope of the wedding supper of the Lamb. Now, each of these doctrines were all preached upon in a sound manner and the connections between them were legitimate. It is also possible this country church is theologically well educated and well able to cope with the cumulative density of doctrine that took place in this sermon. My mind though was engaged at high speed and my heart had little time for examination. I was able to follow the broad sweep of redemptive history, but something of the existential weight of the passage seemed lost. I say lost because, Matt 26 is not only a theological junction between the old and new covenant, it is also a passage that carries great weight that demands trembling before the Lord.

And this leads us to a more searching question: where was the personal challenge?

Judas was described, but not pressed upon the present congregation as a warning. When verse 24 declares, “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born”, covenant curse language comes to the fore. This is eternal language that is confronting. Could it have been said in that church that day that some who sat before the Word and who partakes of the Lord’s Supper, are also covenant breakers facing the same dreadful reality? The sermon expressed the hope that this was not the case, and yet the observation that a real possibility existed that a Judas was present amongst the assembled covenant people was not made. Yet this warning is important. Covenant certainty is not only blessing for the listeners; it is also damnation for any tares present in our congregations. Without the element of curse, the covenant blessings can risk sounding like glory without necessary accompanying gravity.

None of this is to suggest the sermon was unfaithful. I am asking though is there an imbalance of emphasis. Both Peter and Judas are present at that table and likewise, our congregations contain Peters and Judas’ who both eat from the communion table.

What we are talking about here is what may be referred to as the spiritual weight of the sermon. The doctrinal content was rich and confessional, yet the moral gravity of the passage was not pressed. The communion Table was preached primarily as promise of blessing without the exposure of traitors. The bread and cup were rightly described as covenant confirmation, sealing forgiveness and assurance for believers. This is clear pastoral warmth and theologically sound doctrine, but Judas likewise dips his hand into the bowl. Judas shared proximity, fellowship and outward covenant community membership, but he perishes. The sermon treated Judas chiefly as a theological component in the divine plan, rather than as a sobering pastoral warning. Verse 22 tells us that each of the disciples asked the Lord about the state of their own heart but that space was not present in this sermon.

Closely related to this was the limited development of the distinction between weak faith and false faith. This topic could also have been explored with pastoral warmth and moral gravity. It was present in seed form, a brief reference, but the difference between moral failure (our sinning) and apostasy was not unpacked. The sermon moved swiftly to perseverance of the saints and covenant certainty, without the contrast of a false profession.

Think about it from this angle: “Better had he never been born” in v24 is terrifyingly final. It is not mere rhetorical flourish, but covenant curse in its starkest expression. Reformed covenant theology has always recognized that covenant certainty includes promise and sanction. Christ bore the covenant curse for His elect. Whilst the sermon’s calm and doctrinally robust content inspired admiration for Christ, the ongoing life of repentance in the fear of the Lord was not strongly developed. If we could picture Matt 26 in our minds as a room, it would be thick with grace and danger. The danger must be felt if the full value of the comfort is to be received.

If I was to have a negative thing to say about the sermon, it would center upon the lack of Trinitarian theology. The sermon was strongly Christocentric but also somewhat in isolation from the fuller economy of redemption. The Father’s covenant purposes were implied without development but the Holy Spirit was missing altogether. And this AWOL of the Spirit meant His work within the congregation was not addressed. Work such as:

  The Spirit’s application of the benefits of Christ’s blood.

  The Spirit’s work of preserving the saints.

  The Spirit’s convicting of sin before Christ

  The Spirit’s sealing of covenant assurance in the believer’s heart

  The Spirit’s work of distinguishing true from false disciples.

Now, my observations here concerning the non-Trinitarian presentation are not meant to undermine the value of this sermon. When I mention the Holy Spirit’s absence in the sermon, the purpose is to direct attention to the partnership that should be enacted in the pulpit between the preacher and the Spirit. The pulpit is not merely a place of theological transmission but a place where the preacher and the Spirit work together. I am not suggesting symmetry, because the minister is reliant upon the Spirit in preparation during the week and as he stands in the pulpit. A reminder from Calvin helps to clarify this point. Calvin spoke of faithful preaching as the voice of Christ Himself. Here, the preacher traces the covenant; the Spirit would normally seek opportunity to apply its blessings and its warnings upon the conscience. In Matthew 26, the Spirit’s work is not only to inform hearers about the new covenant meal, but to cause them to ask, “Lord, is it I?” The preacher can articulate perseverance and atonement; only the Spirit can expose hypocrisy, convict of sin, and seal assurance in the heart. When the pace of preaching leaves little room for this searching work, doctrine may be admired yet not deeply felt. Slowing down is not about less theology; it may be the very means by which the Spirit makes theology weighty. Had the doctrinal pace been a little slower, allowing longer time to dwell on the text’s inherent warnings, a largely didactic sermon may have become richly experiential.

However, let me close this review with rejoicing in the sermon’s strengths. It honoured covenant theology. It proclaimed Christ clearly. It avoided manipulation. It avoided presenting sin as brokenness, maintaining that sin is rebellion against a Holy God. It was indeed, a broad sweep of redemption’s history that this listener was edified by; he was just longing for the space and time for the Spirit’s ministry of warning and comfort upon my conscience. For Matt 26 is not an arbitrary invitation but eschatological fulfillment of covenant union with Christ.

The sermon may be listened to on