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
add comment

4 Answers

up vote -2 down vote accepted

Animal sacrifices, begun after Adam's sin, were blameless substitutes for sinful men. Animal blood covered Adam's sin, and animal skin covered his naked flesh. This "homological" correspondence between men and their substitutes also explains Gen. 32:32, regarding the refusal of Israelites to eat the sinew of the hip. The bone of the animal was a symbol of the bone of Jacob, who was broken while wrestling with God.

From Adam to Moses, the death and consumption of the animal satisfied the Law, and averted the curse upon men. But the animal was entirely consumed by fire, the fragrant smoke being pleasing to God, a testimony that the Law had been satisfied. We see this in an initial sense in the pleasure of the Father over His blameless Son, the lamb of God, at Jesus' baptism. Obedience is "fragrant," pictured not only in the Incense Altar but also in the showbread which contained incense. It wasn't until the institution of the Levitical priesthood that "clean men" could eat with God, partaking of the sacrifices.

The main reference of the broken body of Jesus was the flesh of the Passover animal (lamb or kid). It was cooked, consumed, and the remainder burnt up. This is the first time an animal that "covered" people was eaten by people. But the animal's bones were not to be broken (Ex. 12:46; Numbers 9:12). The idea of "structure" and "glory" is found throughout the Bible, beginning with the "forming" and "filling" in the Creation week in Genesis 1, and then in the "de-forming" of Adam and the construction of "glorious" Eve in Genesis 2. Adam is given a single Law and then his flesh is broken. An unbroken bone from Adam became the foundation for a new body of flesh. If this sounds strange, this is exactly what we see in Ezekiel 37, where God takes the scattered bones of Israel (Jer. 8:1; Ezek. 6:5) and puts new flesh upon them. Israel's sacrificial "death" in Babylon was due to her neglect of the Law. Likewise, the Israel that came out of Egypt was consumed in the desert, and it was the "new flesh" (circumcised before the conquest of Jericho) which inherited the Land. The structure of the Book of Revelation follows the sacrificial rite. For the last time, Israel herself would be offered and consumed for the sake of the nations. Every one of these corporate "death-and-resurrections" follows the same pattern. Note that Israel was the only kingdom in Canaan that came back from the dead, hence the "reverse sacrifice" in Ezekiel 37, where flesh is not "cut off" but put back on, as it was in Eden. The new Israel of Ezra was a "resurrection body."

So the first breaking of flesh was before sin: for Adam to be head of a household he had to be a living sacrifice, a blameless mediator. The shedding of blood for the construction of Eve prefigures the death of Christ not only for the covering of sin but also for the foundation of the New Covenant Church, the spotless Bride. Typologically speaking, Jesus' broken and bloodied side is the source of the Church. Just as His flesh was renewed on the old bones in resurrection as an individual, so the bodies of the saints would receive new flesh upon old bones, flesh that was justified before God, not by the Law, but by grace (Gal. 2:16).

The "cutting off" of flesh away from bone is death, and death is the curse of the Law. The exposure of bones is a testimony that the Law has been satisfied. The "whiteness" of bones is a sign that righteousness has been restored, but it is the whiteness of sterility. The old, corrupted Adamic flesh has been cut off. Jesus called the Pharisees "whited sepulchers" which were filled with bones and uncleanness. They thought their ceremonial cleanness was a testimony to righteousness but Jesus said it was only a testimony to death, like the external whiteness of the leper, suffering under a curse, a plague from God.

The "unbroken bones" of the Passover animal were also a picture of the bones of Joseph, the firstfruits "seed" who ascended to the right hand of the power that there might be a greater harvest. In a typological sense, Joseph was returning from Egypt to Canaan with "new flesh," the nation of Israel. The whole Bible works like this, in repeated patterns. The "head" falls into the ground and dies (Joseph was thrown into a pit and sold into bondage), that he might be "multiplied" into a Covenant body. The "there-and-back-again" from the promise of the Land to Abraham to its fulfillment under Joshua is chiastic, with Joseph as head and the nation of Israel as body. The entire Bible follows this pattern of "forming and filling" at every level. Joseph was the "head of grain" (Genesis 37:7; 41:5, 57).

Unbroken bones are thus a symbol of the satisfaction of the Law for the sake of a resurrection body, a framework for a body of flesh that is justified before God. The end of "all flesh" is only the end of the Old Order. Israel alone of the nations would have historical continuity, known as "Covenant Succession", but through a series of deaths and resurrections. Both the Tabernacle and Temple each passed through a "tearing down" and "building up again."

But the idea of Covenant Succession, a "future," is also pictured in offspring. Both the cutting off of flesh in circumcision and the cutting off of the flesh of the Passover lamb were substitutionary off-cuttings for the sake of offspring. Isaac himself, the child of the promise, was "cut off" in the death of the ram on Mount Moriah so that Israel might continue. So the cutting off of flesh is intimately tied to offspring, the future. So where broken bones symbolize a final end, they also picture the childlessness of the false Bride. The sterile whiteness of Lot's wife would be tied to this as well. When the lineage of Lot was "cut off" in her judgment, Sarah miraculously conceived. In support of this assertion is the Covenant pattern found in every book of the Bible, that last point of which is historical continuity or "succession." It explains the inclusion and position of all the genealogies, beginning with the one in Genesis 5:

Transcendence: Genesis 1 - sourced in God (initiation)

Hierarchy: Genesis 2 - shedding of blood (delegation)

Ethics: Genesis 3 - breaking of Law (purification)

Sanctions: Genesis 4 - witness of blood (vindication)

Succession: Genesis 5 - all flesh (representation)

(You can see this pattern in the Abraham-Joseph-Moses-Joshua pattern mentioned above.)

So the introduction of circumcision was a substitutionary "cutting off of flesh" to avoid another global flood. Israel became a sacrificial substitute for all nations, bearing their curses, hence all the Laws concerning the flesh in Leviticus (When an Israelite’s skin plague had covered his body, he was no longer unclean but holy [Leviticus 13:12-14]. The curse was complete. Flesh offered to God must be blameless, white, a Covenant Body presented as a “chaste virgin” to the Father.). But the point is that childlessness is tied to corporate death and fertility is tied to corporate life. When Jesus emerged from the grave in the Garden as new Adam, He was met by Mary, a redeemed prostitute, a picture of the new Israel. "Now are we the sons of God" as John says. And all of Old Israel's genealogies were "cut off" when the city of Jerusalem was "circumcised" by the Roman trench and wall and the Temple was destroyed by fire. All its white "bones" were broken. Not one stone was left upon another. The Temple is now the Body of Jesus, whose bones, whose structure, was kept intact. The Church is Israel's "Covenant Succession."

If this Covenant pattern is unfamiliar, see either Ray Sutton's "That You May Prosper" or my own "Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key."

The main thing is to remember that the "individual body" of the Covenant head is the source of the "corporate body." When Jesus' flesh was broken (as Head), the veil in the Temple was torn. When the apostles' flesh was broken (as Body), the entire Temple was destroyed. Under the Herods, Israel had become another Egypt (Hagar) but under Christ, the true children of Abraham would inherit the earth (Sarah).

Transcendence: Genesis 1 - Ministry of Jesus (initiation)

Hierarchy: Genesis 2 - Death and resurrection of Jesus (delegation)

Ethics: Genesis 3 - Giving of Spirit (purification)

Sanctions: Genesis 4 - Destruction of Temple to avenge Abel (vindication)

Succession: Genesis 5 - Ministry of the Great Commission (representation)

And if this is all too much to bear (!) it is how the Bible is constructed. If we can't learn to think in terms of such correspondences (mediation and representation and image, and Covenant structure), much of the Bible will remain a mystery to us.

share|improve this answer
    
let us discuss this in chat –  Gone Quiet Aug 14 '13 at 19:25
add comment

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
1  
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 –  Daи Aug 14 '13 at 15:45
add comment

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
add comment

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
add comment

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.