And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken [the] bread and blessed, broke [it] and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat this is my body.
This happens in the middle of the passover meal, hours before the cross. Jesus takes bread, gives thanks, breaks it, and hands it to His disciples with words that have shaped Christian worship ever since. Two questions sit at the heart of this verse: what was He starting, and what did He mean by calling the bread His body?
The bread was there for the passover, Israel's yearly meal. But what Jesus did with it belonged to something else.
While the disciples were eating, the Lord took bread. This act was not part of the passover ritual. It was quite separate, and quite different in meaning. They kept the passover supper and held to the set form of the ceremony. Then the Lord began a new Supper that would take its place. The sacrifice of our Lord Himself was about to fulfil the passover, and once it was fulfilled, the passover disappears as an appointed feast for the Christian era.
At this new meal He takes a different place.
Now the Lord was like the host. It was His supper, and the disciples were the guests seated at His table. Of His supper, of course, He did not eat. Of the passover He did. There He was one of Israel, remembering the nation's rescue from judgment in Egypt. At the supper He was the One who handed His disciples the memorial of His death. At the passover they remembered the goodness of Jehovah towards Israel; at the Lord's Supper the death of the Lord Jesus was to be before their minds.
Our verse says He blessed "it," and that small word can make readers think something happened to the bread. Another Gospel explains what He did.
The "it" in our version might lead people astray. Another Gospel says, "he gave thanks." When God blesses, He gives a benefit, and gives happiness and joy. When a man blesses his fellow man, it means he wants happiness for him. But when we bless God, we praise Him, we speak well of Him. It means to praise Him highly. So the Lord looked up and blessed — which is the same as giving thanks. The "it" is printed in italics, and many leave it out.
The cross was hours away, and thanksgiving filled 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, filled Him at that time. How this speaks to us! He knew — and His act of giving thanks showed it — that nothing could make His atoning death more effective. Once that death had taken place, nothing a sinner needs from a sacrifice would be missing.
So how should we take His words?
There is no need for strange ideas about the bread. Let us be clear that the material is bread, and that it stays bread. He said, "This is My body," using a figure of speech, as He often did... When He said "This is My body," He gave the loaf a special meaning as His memorial. This, and nothing else, was to be the emblem that would set His body before them.
The circumstances of that evening rule out a literal reading.
So when the Lord says, "this is my body," everyone agrees He is speaking figuratively. It is still bread. It could not be His body then. He was not holding His own body in His own hand, and no such body existed yet — that is, a body dead, with the blood poured out... It is the figure of Christ as a victim, and only that.
He put the bread into their hands. In Scripture, eating carries its own meaning.
To eat together of the same bread or food is a token of friendship... In the Lord's Supper the Christian eats that which is a symbol of the body of Christ, Matt. 26:26, and in eating he has communion with Christ's death.
His words point to Himself, not to the bread.
It matters more than anything to remember that the Lord Jesus Christ is the central figure of this supper. He is there! He is the One who makes the supper real by His presence. He is the One who gives value and worth to our memorial service.
That shapes how Christians keep it, and what it is not.
We believe that Christians should keep the Lord's Supper every Lord's day, and that in doing so they remember His death until He comes. We see no authority in the word of God for treating it as "a sacrifice," "a sacrament," or "a covenant." The word is, "Do this in remembrance of me."
- Took — He took bread from the passover table, but began something new. The old feast was about to be fulfilled, and then it would pass away.
- Blessed — the word means He gave thanks to God. He did nothing to the bread. Translators supplied the word "it," and many leave it out.
- Broke — He gave thanks with the cross in view. Nothing could be added to His sacrifice, and nothing a sinner needs would be missing from it.
- Gave — the bread is a figure of His body, chosen by Him as the one emblem to recall it; eating it is communion with His death.
- Eat — the centre is the Person, not the emblem: "This is My body" points to "in remembrance of Me."
And having taken [the] cup and given thanks, he gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.
After the bread came the cup: He took it, gave thanks, and passed it round with a command that left no one out. That raises two questions — why give thanks on the night before the cross, and who is meant by "all of you"?
Notice who moves first at the table.
Now He took the cup (Matt. 26:27) — an act He did of His own accord — and gave thanks. How full His heart must have been! After that He handed it to His disciples, with words explaining what it stood for: "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." So Luke writes.
Some read the blessing over the cup as a formula that changes the wine. The word means something simpler.
All those who have taken refuge in this blood of the Lord now know about a cup of blessing. It goes on to say, "The cup of blessing which we bless." This does not mean "consecrate" but simply, "we give thanks." We can prove this from Matthew 26, verse 26, where He took the bread and blessed it. The note in the margin there reads simply, "given thanks."
The bread alone would not have said everything. Two separate things on the table say one thing together.
The bread was the body, and the wine the blood. Kept apart in that symbolic way, together they truly showed the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the body, as we know, the blood is the life... But blood seen on its own is the witness of death.
One writer describes what the disciples were meant to feel as the cup came round.
This was to assure their souls that the sea was dry, the fire was quenched, and the sword had drunk its fill. The overflow of that blood was there to support them and give them joy along the way. The cup once filled with wrath had been emptied and its last drops wrung out. Now it was filled to the brim with the blood that told of pardon, peace with God, and separation from a world of sin and sorrow.
Matthew records the invitation. Mark records that they all drank. Put the two together and a question follows.
"Drink of it, all of you" (Matt. 26:27) was the Lord's invitation to His disciples, and surely His invitation today to all His own is just the same. "They all drank of it" we read in Mark 14:23... For whom is the Lord's Supper? Is it the badge of membership of a particular body of Christians? To raise this question is to answer it... It is the LORD'S Supper. It is where He should be supreme. His invitation is for all the blood-bought children of God.
Notice which element carried the command. Nobody needs to be told to eat.
They all were to drink of the wine, knowing beforehand that the cup would one day be kept from most professing Christians. He did not say, "Eat of it, all of you," for that instruction would be quite unnecessary. But He did say, "Drink of it, all of you," and Mark records the fact, "they all drank of it."
Some churches later kept the cup from ordinary members. One writer weighs what that costs.
The cup is denied to ordinary church members. To comfort them, they are assured that a whole Christ — body, blood, soul and divinity — is contained under both kinds, that is, in the bread and in the wine. But if the blood is still in the body, there is no redemption. They are celebrating a Christ still living on earth, before He had shed any blood to redeem us. It is a sacrament of non-redemption.
What He did with the cup sets the pattern for anyone who passes it now.
I can see no warrant in Scripture for anyone breaking the bread, or giving the cup, without giving thanks. Matthew 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23, Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24 all tell us that the Lord Jesus gave thanks when He broke the bread and took the cup. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, the cup is called the cup of blessing, or of thanksgiving.
- He took. No one handed Him this cup; He reached for it Himself, on the night before the cross, and gave thanks.
- He gave thanks. "Blessing" here is thanksgiving, not a formula that changes the wine.
- He emptied. The cup of wrath was drained to its dregs, so that the cup He hands round is filled with pardon and peace.
- He gave it to them. Bread and wine kept separate are the witness that He truly died.
- All of you. He said "all" over the cup, and the cup is the part later kept back. Take it away and you lose the witness that blood was shed.
For this is my blood, that of the [new] covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins.
The words over the cup at the last supper look back to a promise made centuries earlier, and forward to a day still ahead for Israel. They also settle what the cup means for anyone who drinks it: a covenant, a price paid, and sins forgiven.
The ESV reads "my blood of the covenant." Older English versions say "new testament" here, and the writers quoted below keep that older wording. Commentators say the words of the verse rule out a will:
First, how could the word "new" properly apply to a "testament" or will? Nobody ever talks about a "new" will. Second, there is another and stronger objection. What has "blood" to do with a testament or will? The moment we turn to the new "covenant" all is in place. The blood of Christ is exactly its foundation… What has a "testament" to do with "remission of sins"? What has a will to do with blood?
Israel's first covenant was also opened with blood, at Mount Sinai. The parallel only sharpens the contrast:
The blood of the first covenant testified that anyone breaking it would merit death. The blood of the new covenant tells us that the mediator has paid the price: His blood was shed.
Jeremiah was the prophet who promised a new covenant. One writer shows what the Lord added to that promise at the table:
Of all the Old Testament writers, Jeremiah is the only one who mentions the new covenant, though other prophets describe blessings people will enjoy under it… Jeremiah foretold the new covenant and its blessings: the knowledge of God, and the forgiveness of sins. But he did not say what sacrifice this covenant would rest on. The Lord did that when He said, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Luke's account of the same night says "which is poured out for you." Matthew uses a wider word on purpose, and one writer draws out why:
Was not the blood of Christ "shed for many"? We do well to note this wording, and to note that it stands in the Gospel of Matthew… in the first Gospel the phrase is broader, and deliberately so: "shed for many." Matthew presents the Lord as the Messiah of Israel. But His rejection by that people opens the door of blessing to those outside the Jewish circle… Israel's unbelief has not stopped the flow of God's grace. In the wisdom of God, their unbelief became the occasion for turning that grace aside from them (though only for a while), and for making it overflow every barrier, so that it reaches outsiders such as we are.
The Lord handed the cup to the disciples to drink. One writer describes what it was meant to tell them:
This was to assure their souls that the sea was dry, the fire was out, and the sword had drunk its fill. The overflow of that blood was their support and their joy along the way. The cup once filled with wrath had been emptied, down to the last drop. In its place the blood now filled it to the brim — blood that spoke of pardon, peace with God, and separation from a world of sin and sorrow.
The cup separates the blood from the body. The supper holds Him before us in His death:
He then draws their attention to the blood of the new covenant, adding words that extend it to others besides the Jews, without naming them — "It is shed for many." And this blood is not, as at Sinai, only there to confirm a covenant they were responsible to keep faithfully. It was shed for the remission of sins… It is only in His death that the supper presents Him to us. His blood is apart from His body: He is dead.
Israel will enter this covenant in a coming day. Believers are not left waiting for it:
Forgiveness of sins we enjoy now, and Israel will enjoy it later; but they will only know it as part of the blessings of the new covenant, once that covenant has been made with them. We who believe know it now, because the blood on which it will rest has been shed.
- Covenant. The word means an agreement, not a will — "new" and "blood" and "forgiveness" only fit a covenant.
- Cost. At Sinai, blood warned that breaking the covenant meant death. Here, blood says the mediator has already paid.
- Content. Jeremiah promised the covenant; only at the cup did the Lord name the sacrifice it would rest on.
- Compass. "For many" reaches past Israel. Their unbelief became the occasion for grace to overflow to outsiders.
- Consequence. The cup once filled with wrath now tells of pardon and peace with God. Believers have that forgiveness today; Israel will have it when the covenant is made with them.