|
1 Corinthians 11:23-24
How often have we heard the phrase "Christ's broken body"? Many have heard it throughout their lives and have used it countless times. It rolls off the tongue easily and with hardly a second thought. But is it accurate? Is it faithful to Scripture? Is it a valid concept? What effect does it have on our observance of the Passover? While we cannot find the exact phrase in the Bible, Paul's comments in I Corinthians 11:23-24 are its source: For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Emphasis ours throughout) The margin of the New King James Version has a footnote for the word "broken" indicating that the oldest—and some aver, the best—Greek texts do not include it. "Broken" is, in fact, not found in most other translations, which instead render this verse as Jesus saying something to the effect of, "This is My body, which is for you." "Broken" (referring to Christ's body) is also missing in the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of this aspect of the Passover service: » And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." (Matthew 26:26) » And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." (Mark 14:22) » And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19) Only Luke's account deviates by including the word "given." This wording fits with Jesus saying in John 6:51: ". . . the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." He does not mention His body being broken, only that the bread represents His body. Even so, some may maintain that their preferred Greek text contains the word "broken," making it valid. However, this introduces a grammatical difficulty. The verb tense of the presumed "broken" (klao or klazo) in this verse is present passive, indicating that Christ's body was being broken right then—which it obviously was not. Similarly, others dismiss the distinction since Jesus' skin was broken when He was scourged and crucified. This, though, is likewise a poor and porous defense, for klao/klazo is only ever used in Scripture for the breaking—dividing into pieces—of bread at a meal. The word itself must be tortured to indicate breaking only an outer layer of the crust or the skin. On a practical level, Jesus had to break the physical bread to share it among the Twelve. In His statement, He was speaking of sharing His life. But His body was not broken, an important distinction. The literal bread was broken so they could all eat of it, but if Christ's body were broken, it would introduce significant problems in the fulfillment of several scriptures.
David C. Grabbe
Was Jesus Christ's Body Broken? (Part One)
|
