Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In order to fulfill prophecy, his bones were not broken.

Lu 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.

Joh 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Ps 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Why does Paul say otherwise?

1Co 11:24 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.

share|improve this question
I would nominate this for Christianity.SE. BH.SE is for understanding individual words and sensus plenior. You are asking for theology. That said - and I say this as a pastor - good luck finding a forum on a secular site that won't attract people disparaging Paul or Scripture... – Affable Geek May 27 '12 at 16:18
This question was in response to the challenge to offer contradictions. There is an apparent contradiction between verses. As for disparaging remarks, naturally I expect them, but they will not be rewarded points for an answer. The answer requires a sensus plenior because of the apparent contradiction. – Bob Jones May 27 '12 at 19:31
@Affable Geek: I agree with Bob that since it's a textual discrepancy, it works fine here. Passage A, B, and C say His bones weren't broken and D says that, well, His body is broken. (It could also a good fit for C.SE and that's ok.) – Jon Ericson May 28 '12 at 4:19
Fair enough, suggestion withdrawn ;) Its rare that I think something would benefit from migration, and the points y'all raise make me agree. – Affable Geek May 28 '12 at 12:14

2 Answers

The word used for broken in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is κλάω, which according to Strong's is used specifically the breaking of bread, while in John 19:36, συντρίβω (shatter, break in pieces) is used.

The Interpreter's Bible, when commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:24 says of the use of broken:

This may be an interpretive gloss, as most modern editors of the Greek text hold. But it does bring out the emphasis upon the symbolic significance of the breaking of the loaf in its relation to the breaking of Christ's body in his death.

Do note that this commentary was written in 1954, so its definition of modern is 60 years ago! I would be interested to know if the view of broken being "an interpretive gloss" is still held by scholars today.

share|improve this answer

1Co 11:24 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.

Sensus Plenior always argues from a position of faith that God has preserved his word and that apparent contradictions are riddles which have intended meaning.

This verse is used to show that Paul was familiar with sensus plenior.

All the things which are torn, split and broken are one image of the cross. The veil that was torn, the rock which was split, the water which was parted all represent that God himself was torn on the cross. The Son was separated from the Father.

As such, one who practices the discernment of SP can say with equal intent, that he was torn, broken, parted, separated, split etc without contradiction, even though his body itself was not physically broken since it is a metaphor of the cross.

Christ himself broke the bread, and therefore the Paul is referring back to the supper where Christ broke the bread.

share|improve this answer
I'll give the points to an answer which can derive the same meaning from the literal alone or a plausible answer that doesn't disparage the text. – Bob Jones May 28 '12 at 4:58

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.