And he said to them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.
Jesus sits down to His last meal with the disciples. His first words tell them how much He had wanted this evening. In the same breath He names the suffering that is only hours away.
Older translations read "with desire I have desired." The ESV puts it as "earnestly desired." One writer gives the force of the word.
Satan's power and illusion held men's souls. Our perfect blessed Saviour passed through that night, His last with His disciples. He ate that Passover supper of which He speaks in those touching words: "With desire ('earnest, yearning longing,' as the word means) I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."
The same Greek word appears elsewhere in the New Testament with a very different sense. So what makes a longing holy?
"Desire" and "lust" are really the same word, as many passages show… It is the thing longed for that gives the feeling its character. If the object of the craving is good, according to God, then it is a holy desire. So the Lord Himself uses this very word when He speaks to His disciples here… "Lust," as James teaches, starts in us. But holy "desire" is the fruit of the Spirit of God working in the believer.
Compare His side of the table with theirs. The longing ran one way.
First of all His desire is to eat that paschal feast with His disciples. He was the only One who knew what it meant. To Him it spoke of a burden no mere man ever bore, or ever could bear. And yet with desire He desired to eat of that passover before He suffered. He knew it was the immediate forerunner of His death on the cross. Yet not one of the disciples desired to eat it with Him as He desired to eat it with them. This is love, and love is self-sacrificing.
The roast lamb in front of Him was a picture of Himself. One writer asks what He was thinking as He looked at it.
What a moment! On the night He was betrayed, Jehovah-Jesus sat down with His apostles to eat the last Passover with them before He died. A better blood had to be shed — the blood of the Lamb of God… On the table before Him and His apostles lay the roast lamb, and He Himself was the blessed reality it pictured. What was the train of His thoughts when the Holy Lamb of God looked at the picture before Him? Was it His own sufferings? Yes, but in what way? "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you, before I suffer."
What He wanted from them was company — and He wanted it precisely because of what was coming.
Verse 15 is a most beautiful expression, restrained, yet showing the depth of His desire for fellowship with His disciples at the moment when His great sufferings were imminent… In deep affection for them He sought their affections too, some little comfort of their fellowship in view of His very soon being utterly alone on a cross of unspeakable agony.
This was the last Passover He would keep. He did not brush the old order aside.
Here the Lord shows how His heart goes out… As the words that follow show, He is closing His time on earth with them, and the old order of things with it. He closes it with honour, magnifying it by celebrating it. At the same time He longs for the better thing beyond — its glorious fulfilment in the Kingdom of God. His suffering was the only way to this fulfilment, and it was itself the strongest proof He could give of His longing for it.
At the Passover He ate with them. At the supper, minutes later, He was the one who gave.
Notice here two things. The Lord set up the supper after the passover, and He Himself ate the passover with them. It was His service to fulfil all righteousness. At the supper it was different. He entered deeply and perfectly into its character, in all its marvellous blessing to us, so that He gave thanks. Yet instead of eating, He gave it to His disciples to eat. He said, "Take, eat."
- Longing — The doubled wording means an earnest, yearning ache. The same word is elsewhere translated "lust." What is longed for decides whether the desire is holy or evil.
- Love — Not one disciple wanted that meal as much as He did. Love like that is self-sacrificing.
- Lamb — He alone knew what the roast lamb meant, because He was the One it pictured. Better blood was about to be shed.
- Last — It was His final Passover. He honoured the old order by keeping it, and looked past it to its fulfilment in the kingdom of God. His suffering was the only road there.
- Legacy — He ate the Passover with them. The supper that followed He did not eat; He handed it to them: "Take, eat."
For I say unto you, that I will not eat any more at all of it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
This was the last Passover meal Jesus would share with His disciples before the cross, and He points past it to a fulfilment still ahead. Two questions follow: what fulfils the Passover, and which kingdom is He waiting for?
The Lord opens the meal by telling them how much He wanted it.
First of all, His desire is to eat that Passover meal with His disciples. He was the only One who knew what it meant. To Him it spoke of a burden no mere man ever carried or could carry. And yet He longed to eat that Passover before He suffered. He knew it came right before His death on the cross. Yet not one of the disciples wanted to eat it with Him as much as He wanted to eat it with them. This is love, and love is self-sacrificing.
This was the last Passover of its kind. Its meaning pointed forward to the cross.
So far, this was the last Passover kept as God meant it to be kept. When the Lord died and the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, the Mosaic ritual began to fall away. Believers from among the Jews came to see that their place was outside the camp, and they left Jerusalem and the temple behind. The Lord's death fulfilled the Passover, just as the coming of the Holy Spirit fulfilled the feast of weeks. The blood of the Passover lamb was a picture of the blood of Christ. He is our Passover, and He has been sacrificed (1 Cor. 5:7). But at that moment the Passover was not yet fulfilled. So the Lord took part in it.
He eats with them. He does not drink with them. Then He puts something else in its place.
I think the account of the Passover in Luke shows the old system passing away and the new coming in. He shows true love to His disciples by eating with them for the last time — a token of affection, but He will not eat it any more. Then the Passover cup — fellowship and joy in it — He does not take at all. They are to divide it among themselves; He will not drink of it till the Kingdom of God comes. Then He sets up the new thing in His body broken — the remembrance of a new and better deliverance — and the Cross, the new covenant in His blood.
The change was not a repair of the old arrangement. The whole footing is new.
In the next place the Lord breaks every link with the old order of things. He says, "I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." In this verse the question is not setting up the kingdom, or establishing it as things were. He is about to establish things on a wholly new basis through redemption, through the work He was about to do before God.
Commentators differ over the timing of "the kingdom of God" here. Some read it as the kingdom that was about to arrive in a new, moral form:
It was about to come in a moral way. Luke holds to that great principle: God was about to establish His kingdom in what you may call the Christian system.
Others place it further ahead, at the day when Israel sees the One they rejected:
He would not eat the Passover again until its spiritual meaning is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. His own death did fulfil the meaning of the Passover. But Israel stays blind to this until they "look on Me, on Him whom they have pierced" (Zech. 12:10), and He will bring in the kingdom for that nation. Only then will the Passover be fulfilled for them.
He shares the food. He passes the cup to them untouched. One writer reads this as a refusal of gladness.
Why did He not take the cup? The Passover rules did not require it. "Now," said the Lord, "I will not taste joy." As an obedient Jew, He kept the Passover, but joy waited for Him in the kingdom. Till then, He knows no earthly joy.
- Desired — He longed for this meal knowing it was the last before the cross; He wanted it more than any of them did.
- Fulfilled — the Passover pointed forward, and His death answered it: "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed."
- Finished — the last true Passover closed the old system. In its place He gave bread and cup, the memorial of a better deliverance.
- Delayed — commentators differ on the timing. Does "the kingdom of God" mean the kingdom coming now in a moral way, or the day when Israel sees the One they pierced?
- Deferred joy — He ate but would not drink. The cup of gladness waits for the kingdom.
And having received a cup, when he had given thanks he said, Take this and divide it among yourselves.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
For I say unto you, that I will not drink at all of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God come.
Jesus has just eaten His last Passover with His twelve apostles. He gives thanks over the cup, then hands it on without drinking. His words draw a line. Table joy with His friends on earth ends here, and only the coming kingdom will reopen it.
Luke records two cups that evening. This one belongs to the Passover meal. It is not the supper Jesus gives His disciples a moment later.
It was this cup that He told them to divide among themselves — not that of the Lord's supper. Our Lord Jesus never took part in His own supper. He shared the Passover supper, but not His own. For this is for us, being the witness of a redemption which He wrought for us (not for Himself, of course)... The Lord's Supper speaks to us of perfect peace through His suffering. He did not need it: He gave it all to us.
One writer explains His refusal from the history of the feast itself.
The original rules for the Passover say nothing about a cup. As Deuteronomy 16:3-8 shows us, there was no room for one, because the feast in the month of Abib was not a feast of joy. What God had instituted, the Lord conformed to. Of what man had added, the Lord did not partake. He did not, however, condemn the cup as wrong. But the time for joy that goes with full redemption had not come, so He did not drink of it Himself. When He had given thanks, He handed it to His disciples to divide among themselves.
There was a reason He would not drink.
He eats with them: He will not drink. Another cup was before Him. As for this cup, they were to take it, and divide it among themselves. It was not the Lord's Supper, but the Passover cup. He was about to drink of a far different cup, which His Father would give Him — the reality that the Passover pointed to, and the basis of the Lord's Supper.
Elsewhere Kelly names what that other cup held: "the cup of God's wrath against sin, in contrast with the joy symbolized by the ritual of the Passover" (William Kelly).
Why does the verse speak of wine at all?
The fruit of the vine is the sign of social joy, "wine which cheers the heart of God and man." They sprinkled it again and again in the burnt offerings and the peace offerings. Now, of this fruit of the vine He would drink no more, while His disciples would drink deeply of His death, the true drink... So His social life with His disciples here on earth was closed. It would never be renewed in the same way. They would enter spiritually into the power of His death, and one day they would be with Him again in joy in the kingdom of His Father.
Turpin sees Jesus taking openly the place that had always been His:
He was always the true Nazarite here on earth — separate from men, though living among them in all the grace of His heart. But now He openly takes up the character that had always been His inwardly.
Commentators differ on when that kingdom comes. Kelly points out that Luke does not use the phrase the way the other Gospels do.
The other Gospels connect it with the future. Luke speaks of what was to be made good shortly — "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit."
Another writer sees the same promise pictured long before, when Melchizedek met Abram after a battle:
He met him with the fruit of the vine which, as we know, is to be drunk in the kingdom. He refreshed Abram with a feast after the warfare was accomplished, and gave him a blessing from the possessor of heaven and earth. His acts, therefore, were those of one who was standing in the kingdom.
Luke gives the bare fact. The other two accounts add something.
Mark adds that in the coming Kingdom the fruit of the vine will have a "new" character. Matthew adds a further detail: the drinking will be "with you."
- Cup one. The cup He hands over is the Passover cup, not the Lord's Supper. He never drank His own supper, because it stands for a redemption He worked for others.
- Cup two. He passes the cup of joy because His Father holds out another cup to Him — the cup of God's wrath against sin.
- Cup refused. Wine is the sign of shared gladness. By refusing it He closes His social life with the disciples on earth and takes openly the place of the true Nazarite, separate from men.
- Cup promised. The delay is not a cancellation. Melchizedek's feast after the battle shows that the fruit of the vine belongs to the kingdom, once the warfare is over.
- Cup shared. Mark adds that the wine will be "new." Matthew adds that it will be drunk "with you" — not alone, but at a table shared again.
And having taken a loaf, when he had given thanks, he broke [it], and gave [it] to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me.
On the night before He died, Jesus sat at the table with His disciples. He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and put a lasting memorial of Himself into their hands. Two questions follow: what does the bread mean, and why does He ask us to remember Him?
The timing was deliberate. He gave this supper on the worst night of His life. Betrayal, denial and desertion were all waiting for Him.
The Lord was about to enter a dreadful conflict with all the powers of darkness. He was about to meet all the deadly hatred of man, and to drink to the last drop the cup of God's righteous wrath against sin. He had a terrible day ahead of Him — the most terrible ever faced by man or angel. Yet despite all this, we read that on "the night when he was betrayed" He took bread. What unselfish love this is! That same night was a night of deep sorrow, the night of His agony and bloody sweat. One disciple betrayed Him, another denied Him, and all of them deserted Him. On that very night, the loving heart of Jesus was full of thoughts about His Church.
Before He broke the bread, He thanked God. The cross was right in front of Him.
What a moment that must have been, when they heard Him giving thanks in view of His death on the cross! Thanksgiving, not prayer, occupied Him at that time. How this speaks to us! His act of giving thanks showed what He knew. Nothing could be added to increase the power of His atoning death. Once that death had taken place, nothing a sinner needs from a sacrifice would be missing. His thanksgiving fully proves that His sacrifice is enough, and that its power lasts.
Luke's wording is personal. Matthew and Mark record "for many." Luke records "for you," pointing straight at the people at the table.
Notice the difference in the words that set up the Lord's supper. Matthew and Mark have "My blood shed for many." Luke has "My body which is given for you" and "My blood which is shed for you." His love shines out in these words. Luke alone gives His loving request, "Do this in remembrance of Me."
So does the bread change? No — the words paint a picture.
"This is my body," are the Lord's words. There is no need, though, for fanciful ideas about the bread. Let us be clear: the material is bread, and it stays bread. He was using a figure of speech, the kind often on His lips… By saying "This is my body," He gave the loaf a special meaning. This loaf, and nothing else, was to be the emblem of His body, and so bring His body back to their minds.
He asks us to remember a Person. At the table everything else gives way to Him.
In coming together to break bread, we not only express the oneness of the body, show the Lord's death, and together await His return — we remember Him in a special way. Self drops out of sight — self with its failures, self with its blessings, self with its service. PEOPLE, however loved and honoured in their ministry, are ignored. The most pleasing circumstances, or the most depressing cares, are given no place. Meanwhile the LORD HIMSELF — Lord as the One who died — commands the heart and the mind of the believer. "Do this in remembrance of ME." This makes the Supper beautifully simple, yet precious beyond words.
The verse holds a command as well as a memory. That command calls for company.
In this loving request we have something to do, as well as someone to remember. It is also the expression of one body. "Do this" means an act we carry out with others. When we are alone, we may have sweet memories of the Saviour's precious words and ways, and of His suffering, even to death, for us. But here is something to do… If I do not do it, I do not carry out His mind.
This meal is not the Passover. The two look in different directions.
At the passover Israel remembered the LORD's goodness toward them; at the Lord's Supper the death of the Lord Jesus was to be before the mind… The passover looked back only. Keeping the Lord's Supper, we look back and we look forward, for as 1 Cor. 11:26 says, we show the Lord's death "until he comes." He died for us, and we eat of His supper in remembrance of Him.
- Love that night. He gave the supper on the night of betrayal — the setting proves the love behind the gift.
- Love thanking. He gave thanks before He broke the bread: His sacrifice would need nothing added to it.
- Love for you. Luke's "given for you" narrows the vast work of the cross down to the people at the table.
- Love pictured. The bread stays bread; it is the chosen emblem that brings His body back to mind.
- Love remembered. "In remembrance of Me" asks for Him, not for our benefits. "Do this" makes it an act we carry out together — looking back at His death, and forward to His coming.
In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Luke's account of the last supper moves in two stages. First comes the Passover meal with His twelve disciples. Then, after it, He hands them something new: a cup He calls a covenant in His own blood.
One commentator marks the exact point where the old meal ends and the new one starts.
In Luke's account, the Passover Supper and the Supper He set up are clearly separate: verses 15-18 give the one, verses 19 and 20 the other. The Lord's words about the Passover show that the old order was closing.
Older English translations call the cup a "testament," meaning a will, and say the blood was "shed" where the ESV says "poured out." Commentators say the word means a covenant — an agreement — and that the context settles it.
"Testament" is here quite out of place; what does someone who guarantees a promise have to do with making a will? The word in itself can carry either sense... The context decides with certainty. In Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20, forgiveness of sins is tied directly to the "new covenant" (not testament), just as in Jeremiah 31:31-34. And what has "blood" to do with a "will"? That it should be the basis of a covenant is a familiar truth.
Jeremiah had announced a new covenant centuries earlier. Here the Lord adds what Jeremiah never said.
At last, in the upper room in Jerusalem, speaking only to the twelve disciples, the Lord referred to it — and in a way that showed heaven had not forgotten it... But He added two important details to what Jeremiah had revealed. First, the covenant would rest on the blood of a sacrifice. Second, that blood would be His own... The covenant will not be made with Christians, but with the house of Israel and the house of Judah — though Christians share, even now, in blessings connected with it: the knowledge of God and the forgiveness of sins.
The Lord gives the cup on its own, after the meal.
And so with the cup "after the supper," who could hesitate as to what that cup set forth? He Himself says, "In My blood." It is not blood inside the body, but blood apart from it, separated from it — that is, in death. The so-called "sacrifice of the mass" denies all of this.
Matthew's Gospel records "for many." Luke records "for you." One writer says this makes justification — being counted right with God — a personal matter.
Luke's point was not to say "for many." That was most fitting in Matthew's Gospel, because it shows that the power of Christ's blood reaches beyond the Jew... In Luke it is more personal, and so it deals more closely with the heart and conscience. Many a man accepts justification by faith in a general way. But the moment you make it personal, he shrinks from taking the place of a justified man, as if that would be too much for God to give him! In truth, no one can go on with God properly until divine grace settles the personal question. So the Lord here settles it for them personally.
That same blood is why a believer can come to His table at all.
From these words we learn that the blood of Christ is the only ground on which we can be at the Lord's table at all... Why is it that we can be in such sacred nearness without fear and dread? Why are we not ashamed of ourselves, with our eyes full of tears because of our sins? The answer lies in the words, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins. It is shed so that you may be with Me at My table, a blood-washed company that will remember My death and sound My praise through all eternity."
Commentators note a gap between the shedding of the blood and the making of the covenant.
The new covenant rests on the blood which is drunk here in symbol. The old covenant was set aside. Establishing the new one required blood. At the same time, the covenant itself was not yet established; but God had done everything on His side.
So where does that leave Christians?
Israel will enjoy the blessings of the new covenant, and that covenant will rest on the blood of Christ. Yet when the Lord set up His supper, He mentioned that covenant and then tied the blessings of the disciples — and ours too — not to a covenant that has never yet been made, but directly to His precious blood, shed long ago on the cross... We have nothing to do with the new covenant, though the blood it rests on is the blood in which we have an everlasting interest.
- Blood first. A covenant needs blood. Jeremiah never said whose blood it would be; the Lord names it as His own.
- Blood apart. The Lord gives the cup on its own. Blood outside the body means one thing: death.
- Blood for you. Luke's "for you" turns a wide truth into a personal one and settles the conscience.
- Blood as ground. That blood, and nothing else, lets a believer sit at His table without shame.
- Blood before the covenant. God's side is finished. The covenant itself still awaits Israel. Meanwhile, those who trust Christ already draw their blessing straight from the cross.