This phrase shows that Christ would be absent when His disciples ate of this supper in the future. In order to impress upon men the awful nature of disobedience, God had required of the Hebrews animal sacrifices. But these sacrifices could not, of themselves, change the character of the sinner who made the sacrifice; they could only point him to the Redeemer to come, who would, in His own body, make the great sacrifice whereby man might be reconciled to God. The Lord’s Supper, which succeeded the Passover memorial of deliverance from Egypt, was given, not as a sacrifice, but vividly to remind the believer of all that has been achieved for him by the one great sacrifice made by the Son of God for the whole human family (see Heb. 9:25-28; 10:3-12, 14).

 The sacrifice of Christ was perfect; therefore it could be offered only once. But in order to make it efficacious for all who should seek forgiveness of sin through Him, Jesus became man’s great high priest in heaven after His ascension, there to present the merits of the sacrifice of His own broken body on behalf of repentant sinners “till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26; Heb. 4:14-16; 7:24, 25; 8:1, 6; 9:11, 12, 14, 24). As the Saviour ministers on our behalf in heaven, pleading before the Father the merits of His sacrifice, He calls upon His people on earth to observe the ordinance that keeps before them the mystery of the atonement.

Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the omission of this verb.

 As to the meaning of this figure of speech see on Matt. 26:26. The spiritual significance of the act of partaking of the broken bread must be understood against the background of man’s original state of perfection, his fall, and his redemption through Jesus Christ. Man was originally created in the image of God, both in form and in character; his mind was in harmony with the mind of God (see Gen. 1:26, 27; PP 45). He held open communion with God and the angels and was sustained by the fruit of the tree of life (see Gen. 2:15, 16; PP 47, 50). But when he sinned, all this was changed. He lost the privilege of open communion with God; instead of being in harmony with the mind of God, he was perverted in mind, and fear took the place of love (see Gen. 3:8, 10, 12; Isa. 59:2; Jer. 17:9). Left to himself, man could not find his way back to God and happiness, he could not escape the clutches of Satan, and was doomed to perish eternally (see Jer. 13:23; PP 62). In His incomprehensible mercy God revealed Himself to man in the person of His Son, and made possible the restoration of His image in man (see Ps. 2:7, 12; 40:7; John 14:9-11; 2 Cor. 5:19).

 In His wisdom the Father has chosen to speak to mankind through His Son, therefore the Son is called the Word of God (see John 1:1-3, 14; DA 19, 22, 23). It is by the study and assimilation of the Word of God that believers maintain communion with Heaven and are enabled to live spiritually. This assimilation of His words is described by Jesus as eating His body and drinking His blood (see John 6:47, 48, 51, 54-58, 63; DA 660, 661). The broken bread of the communion supper signifies the wonderful truth that as man derives his physical life from God, who is the source of life, so the repentant, believing sinner derives spiritual life from Jesus, the Word of God. Physical food is provided for all men by the power and grace of God. The physical food taken into the body is changed by the processes of digestion into the tissues of brain, muscle, nerve, and bone; and actually becomes man himself. Thus man, physically, is what he eats. In like manner he who by study takes into his mind the Word of God, and brings his life into conformity with it by the power of God, is changed from a rebel, continually living in opposition to God and therefore to his own best interests, to a loving, obedient child of God, whose whole purpose in life is to reflect the image of his Creator (see DA 660). This precious experience has been made possible for man only by the breaking of the body of Jesus.

 Jesus meaningfully broke that which was to be from that time forward “till he come” (v. 26) the mysterious symbol of all that His substitutionary sufferings mean to the human race. The act of breaking the bread indicated primarily the suffering that He was about to undergo on our behalf.

 Gr. eucharisteō, “to give thanks,” from which the word “Eucharist” is derived. The term “Eucharist” is applied by some theologians to the Lord’s Supper as a sacrifice of thanksgiving for all the gifts of God. Some of the Fathers of the church in the 2d century applied the word to the bread and wine used in the ordinance. In the account of the institution of the ordinance given by Mark, the word eulogeō, “to praise,” or “to bless,” is used; in Matthew textual evidence (cf. p. 10) favors the reading eulogeō, but in Luke eucharisteō is employed as here (see Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). Both words have similar meaning and in the context convey the idea of consecrating the bread by a grateful acknowledgment of God’s mercy and love.