LORD'S SUPPER:
THE BROKEN BODY OR THE BROKEN BREAD?

Question #1: Is there a scripture that says Christ's body was broken?

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTION #1: Is there a scripture that says Christ's body was broken?

 

Context of question.

Is it correct when we gives thanks for the bread and fruit of the vine that represents the Lord's body and blood He shed on that cross, to say that His body was broken? I hear that often in the prayer "that His broken body".  Is there a scripture that says Christ's body was broken? We are having some discussion about the correct wording of our prayer and thoughts during the serving of the Lord's supper.

 

 

 

MY ANSWER:

 

 

First, thank you for the question. 

 

The Bible emphasizes that Jesus' bones were NOT broken.  This was in answer to a prophesy.    I understand that generally a crucified person's legs were broken to hasten death when it was desired.   In Jesus' case he was already dead and it was proven by a spear thrust into the body of Jesus.  Blood and water came forth.  He was dead.

 

Now, although no bone was broken, his flesh was invaded by the nails and later by that spear. Before that, Jesus had been scourged with the whip that would have broken the skin on his back and probably sides and some in the front.  

 

In these senses then, Jesus body was broken for you and me.   Not his bones, but the flesh of His body.

 

Interesting information:

^{1 Corinthians 11:14}

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken^G2806 for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

Robertson's Word Pictures on 1 Corinthians 11, verse 24, claims that this is not genuine. It is only in the Textus Receptus. His comments:

 

 "Which is for you (to huper humōn) klōmenon (broken) of the Textus Receptus (King James Version) is clearly not genuine. Luke (Luke 22:19) has didomenon (given) which is the real idea here. As a matter of fact, the body of Jesus was not broken (John 19:36). The bread was broken, but not the body of Jesus."

^{STRONG'S DEFINITION OF THE GREEK "broken":}

^G2806

^klaō

^Klah-o

^{A primary verb; to break (specifically of bread): - break.   [STRONG'S]}

 

^{Thayer Definition of this word:}

^{1) to break}

^{1a) used in the NT of the breaking of bread or communion}

^{Part of Speech: verb}

 

To begin with, I would not presume to "argue" with Robertson since he is an expert on the Greek language. However, I would scrutinize his comments about the breaking not referring to Jesus' body.

 

 He doesn't respect the the Textus Receptus manuscript authority as used by the King James translators.   His reason for rejecting the language of the King James Version here is that it is not "genuine".   Why is it not "genuine"?   His answer in essence appears to be because he knows what the real idea should be here.    But if he'd accepted the Textus Receptus he'd have to accept what it is in the English translation:   Christ's body.  Obviously he prefers the quote from the institution of the communion recorded in Luke 22:19.   "Christ's body is given for you."   There is no doubt in my mind that this comment on 1 Corinthians 11 by Robertson is his religious view and not his scholarship.

 

By the way, I would ask Dr. Robertson, since the text does not say "His bones, which are broken for you", why go to John 19:36?

 

English grammar

If the Textus Receptus is genuine (true) then the English translation is clearly correct and it is the body of Jesus that was broken for us.   (Remember your English grammar:   the antecedent of "which" is the nearest noun; I.e., "body, which".  The construction forbids the "bread" being "which".

 

    Things don't have to be "bones" in order for the body to be described as "broken".  Take your pick of different meanings of "broken" in English.

 

MERRIAM WEBSTER ENGLISH DICTIONARY

 

Main Entry:

Broken

Pronunciation:

\ˈbrō-kən\

Function:

Adjective

Etymology:

Middle English, from Old English brocen, from past participle of brecan to break

Date:

13th century

1: violently separated into parts : shattered

 

2: damaged or altered by breaking: as

    A: having undergone or been subjected to fracture <a broken leg>

    B: of land surfaces : being irregular, interrupted, or full of obstacles

    C: violated by transgression <a broken promise>

    D: discontinuous , interrupted e: disrupted by change fof a tulip flower : having an irregular, streaked, or blotched pattern especially from virus infection

 

3:     A: made weak or infirm

    B: subdued completely : crushed , sorrowful <a broken heart> <a broken spirit>

    C: bankrupt

    D: reduced in rank

4:   A: cut off : disconnected

    B: imperfectly spoken or written <broken English>

5: not complete or full <a broken bale of hay>

6: disunited by divorce, separation, or desertion of one parent <children from broken homes> <a broken family

 

In conclusion:

Ordinarily I would say, "if it offends someone for me to say Christ's body was broken (because they sincerely feel that such would refer exclusively to the bones), then I would use a different word (for expediency sake)."  However, for one to say that I or anyone cannot by choice read the King James' Version of 1 Corinthians 11 over the Lord's Table because they want "broken" to mean bones, and they want to be a disciple of Robertson, and change it to the bread, I feel that they don't respect the Word of God enough to rule my faith.   They are in error.  

 Jackie Stearsman of the Florida School of Preaching in Lakeland, Florida, who is adept in the Greek, asks a question that should resolve this issue, "May we take the term 'broken' figuratively?"