Christ's body, broken for you

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BrianT, Dec 14, 2002.

  1. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi,

    In another version discussion board, 1 Cor 11:24 was brought up.

    KJV: "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

    NASB: "and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

    This is a textual variation, some Greek manuscripts containing "broken" and some not.

    Note that that passage is quoting Christ from the Gospels. In the KJV, the quote comes from:

    Matt 26:26 "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body."

    Mark 14:22 "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."

    Luke 22:19 "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

    None of the Gospels have Christ saying his body is broken. Christ broke the *bread*: was this symbolic of breaking his body, and is this where the "broken" quote in 1 Cor 11:24 comes from? How do we reconcile this reading in the KJV with John 19:33-36 ("For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken", a fulfillment of the description of the passover lamb, Exodus 12:46).

    Which reading of 1 Cor 11:24 do you believe is correct, and why? For those that believe "broken" should be in 1 Cor 11:24, can you explain why, taking into account the passover aspect?

    [ December 14, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  2. H.R.B.

    H.R.B.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian T,
    Is this a trick question?

    Yours Truly,
    Heidi
     
  3. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Verse 23 clearly tells us that Paul received this revelation from the Lord Himself. He was not quoting anyone else.

    1Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you , That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: (KJV)

    Since this was communicated to Paul directly by the Saviour much later than Matthew who was writing from the perspective of one who was actually there, we have to assume that these are the exact words that the Lord would have us use when we observe the Lord's Supper.

    [ December 14, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    "broken" has more than one meaning.

    His body was broken. He was exhausted. Jesus died quickly because He was exhausted from the ordeal (sleepless night, beatings, whippings, crown of thorns, etc...) that led up to his crucifixion.

    Psalms 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

    HankD
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    But this is a textual variant. Your comments would also be true if the variant *without* "broken" was the original reading. That's what my question is about.
     
  7. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I was trying to point out the error of your assertion when you attributed this verse to being a quote from the gospels.

    And in response to your question of where the "broken" quote came from. It came directly from the Lord.

    I will have to check into the textual variant aspect of it.

    [ December 14, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  8. 2peter1_10

    2peter1_10
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    When Jesus says that "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you" in 1 Corinthians 11:24. It does not contradict the gospels. It expands on what they said. This is the same principle where Jesus says that "cock crow" in verses Matthew 26:32, Luke 22:32, and John 13:36, while in verse Mark 14:27 he says, "cock crow twice."

    What Paul gives is more detail that the others did not include. Remember that God through the Holy Spirit directly moved these men to write the scriptures. There are other places the give evidence of God giving information to the writer that he would not have other wise.
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    But does it not oppose the gospels, where they say Christ's body was *not* broken, in fulfillment of prophecy, ie. the passover?

    If the KJV didn't have "broken" in 1 Cor 11:24, and the NASB did, would not the NASB be accused of going against John 19:33-36 needlessly, detracting from the passover connection of Christ's crucifixion?

    Do those who believe the "broken" reading is correct, believe the NASB's "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." to be in error? Why? (and "because that's what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write" or "because that's what the KJV says" is a circular argument. ;) )

    [ December 15, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  10. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    You just answered your own question.

    [ December 15, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    You just answered your own question.</font>[/QUOTE]Really? Were you there looking over Paul's shoulder? How do you know he didn't write "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me"?
     
  12. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian T;
    What do you look for when reading God's word clearity or fault?.If you found clearity would you know what to do with it.Or if fault how would you know it was fault?.
    Romanbear [​IMG]
    Peace
     
  13. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, & guess what, you did'nt either.
    How do you know if he DID??

    I have no problem accepting God's word as is.It's not hard try it;your argument is built on sinking sand.
     
  14. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    but that begs the question. hmm, like why not accept God's word when it says, "which is for u"? why add "broken"?
     
  15. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Where in the Gospels does it say that Christ's body was "not" broken. Every account of the crucifixion in the Gospels is proof positive that our Lord's body was indeed broken.

    Paul clearly tells us that this is what he received directly from the Lord. Apparently the majority of extant manuscripts contained this phrase when the Translators brought it over from the Greek.

    This is why we oppose the use of marginal and foot notes to discuss textual variants. All that is accomplished is the planting of doubt in the mind of the reader as to the accuracy of the translation. This thread is a case in point.

    How comforting it is to sit down and read the Word of God without having doubts or questions regarding it's authority.
     
  16. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    See Psalms Chapter 22 for answer..
     
  17. 2peter1_10

    2peter1_10
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible does not say, "his body was not broken." It says, "A bone of him shall not be broken." (John19:34). There is a difference between "body" and "bone." His body was ripped apart by the scourging. His beard was literally ripped off of his face (Isaiah 50:6). He was beaten and abused so badly that He no longer was recognizable (Isaiah 52:14).

    The Breaking of the bread is a picture of the extreme abuse our Lord suffered for our sins. It is, therefore, my assertion that the correct reading in 1 Corinthians 11:24 would be to include the word "broken." The Lord's Supper is a memorial of his death and the brutality of it.

    Please note: I do not defend the KJV because I was told it is best. I grew up with the NIV. I did extensive study on the subject. Later I will begin a thread that has some of my findings so that they may be discussed. I am presently reviewing the 20 or so books that I have on the subject (from both sides of the argument) to insure that I represent things in an accurate manner. [​IMG]

    [ December 15, 2002, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: 2peter1_10 ]
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the KJV translators you so highly admire did the very thing that you think is wrong. Can you not see the inherent inconsistency of your argument on this point? If you read the preface, the translators tell why they did this, they directly refute your contention that it introduces confusion, and they leave the marginal readings. Why are you so quick to trust the KJV translators when you don't trust the KJV translators??
     
  19. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    "There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremp- torily?"
    Translators to the Reader

    The marginal notes did not discuss textual variants. The translators were very clear what the marginal notes were for. If the translators had any question about the text, they put the word and/or phrase in italics.

    That is quite an assumption on your part Brother Larry that I distrust the KJV Translators. On the contrary, I do not trust the men alone; I trust the God who promised to preserve His Word.

    [ December 15, 2002, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Had you started just little bit earlier in your quotation, your assertion would have been proved wrong. They say,

    So in the words of the KJV translators, those who limit themselves to one version with no marginal notes are unwise. Remember, those are their words not mine.

    According to Scrivener, of 767 notes in the NT, 35 are explanatory notes or brief expositions, 582 give alternative renderings, 112 give a more literal rendering of the Greek than the translators judged suitable for the text, and 37 give readings of different MSS. Did you note that last one??? In 37 places, the KJV translators felt constrained (by the Holy Spirit??) to admit that other manuscripts differed and may indeed be the right ones. What is clear from their own words is that modern KJV proponents have much more confidence in the translators than they had in themselves. It is a confidence that they would have decried.

    This article will be helpful: web page From this page, go to DBSJ -- Volume 1, Number 2: Fall, 1996 and read the article entitled "The Preface to the KJV and the KJV Only Position." I can't load the article at present, but this link will get you to the right page.

    As do I, but the KJV translators explicitly deny your assertion concernign the usefulness of marginal notes and the wisdom of using only one translation. They included marginal notes and called for the reader to use more than one translation. Why don't you join them?
     

Share This Page

Loading...