Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

John says that Jesus's body won't be broken:

Lu 22:19 (for context): 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.

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

3 Answers 3

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
Hey Peter, do keep in mind that Strong's is a concordance, not a lexicon. Your source is likely relying on another lexicon that they have keyed to Strong's. See meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/642/423 –  Dan Aug 14 '13 at 15:45

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

If there is a contradiction at all between Paul's tradition and the tradition of the Gospel writers, it can be resolved as a text critical issue here in 1 Corinthians 11:24. Most of the early manuscripts simply have Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν - "This is my body, which is for you." The short phrase τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν also appears in 2 Corinthians 9:3, suggesting that it's not out of place in Pauline writing.

The use of κλώμενον along with other variants θρυπτόμενον and διδόμενον (following Luke 22:19's τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον) likely developed later as an attempt to supply the sense in which Jesus' body is "for you." The earliest manuscripts (א* A B C*) and the papyrus P46 reflect a tradition compatible with Luke's account of the last supper. As such, most modern translation simply render 1 Corinthians 11:24 similar to the NET:

And after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

This appears the best reading then and resolves the issue without resorting to some sensus plenior.

share|improve this answer
Great answer - I agree (after quickly checking my UBS), and it seems to confirm the "interpretive gloss" statement made in the IB. –  Peter Aug 15 '13 at 7:45

Your Answer


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.