Luke 22:15-20 is clear that the cross yet lay ahead of Christ. Then he said, "This is my body which is given for you… This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you”, commanding them to eat and drink. Did the bread which he broke, speaking of his broken body, and the wine to be drunk, speaking of his shed blood, mean something to the disciples different to their view of those emblems after Jesus’ resurrection, once they started to do that in remembrance of him? Obviously, Jesus HAD to institute that Supper before he died! And Greek tenses may allow for past or present tense to underscore the assurance of what would happen. But on that evening, their partaking of that bread and that wine could never have struck them as being a literal partaking of the actual body and blood of Christ.
For clarity, I am NOT wanting any examination of whether the Last Supper was, technically, the First Supper of a new event for Christians (as opposed to being connected to the Passover seder for Jews). Nor am I wanting comments about which cup was used, when. Those matters are dealt with in existing Stack questions.
A similar question to mine is here, Lutheran response to non-literalist interpretation of the Lord's Supper ‘What is the Lutheran response to the argument made by some, that Christ couldn't have meant "this is my body" in a literal sense, since he was himself bodily present in the midst of the disciples, in the same upper room, as distinct from the elements?’ The only answer given, from the Marburg Colloquy, 1529, was not helpful.
I am not looking exclusively for the Lutheran response, but for views from all Christians who partake of those emblems themselves within the general fold of Protestantism. This would exclude all who do not partake of the bread and wine passed around at this event. I am not looking for the Catholic view either, not yet, as I may frame another question for them after I have had responses to this one.
My question seeks insights into believers partaking of the bread and wine prior to Jesus’ body being broken and his blood being shed. This only happened once in history and I am not aware of any comments from those few as to how they understood it, compared with how they came to understand it the second time (and thereafter, down the centuries). Now, it could be that there are some ancient Catholic sources that would shed a little light on my question, so I do not preclude those being quoted by Protestants; I just don’t want answers extolling (or disagreeing with) either Catholic or Protestant views of what the emblems came to mean after that ‘First Supper’. My focus is entirely on that ‘First Supper’. So, please help me with a matter that is very narrowly focused, even if the range of answers can come from a very broad school indeed!