Lutheranism 101: Partaking in a worthy manner

I recently came across a book distributed by a pastor of a local LCMS1 church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The book is titled Lutheranism 101, and it's a fairly basic book even though it fills almost three hundred 8"x10" pages with "official" Lutheran dogma (which I think is a fairly large sized book of basic "essentials"). I was especially caught off guard by a few "official" doctrines in the book, not that I had never heard of them before. It's just that I never heard contemporary answers to basic questions answered this, well, basically. For instance, in the section on the Lord's Supper, the question is asked, "Who Is Worthy?" with regard to participants in the sacred meal itself. The answer to that question is as follows:

Being worthy and well prepared to receive the Lord's Supper involves believing the words "given and shed." What is given and shed? Jesus' body and blood. In other words, worthiness involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very2 body and blood. In the previous chapter, we mentioned that some believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution; and that makes one unprepared for the Sacrament.3

Here are a few of my thoughts on this matter. First of all, I find it interesting that the author inserts the parallel phrase, worthy and well prepared, as he defines worthiness. Clearly, the author did not consider Paul's own words to be clear enough -- words which only warn Christians to not partake "in an unworthy manner" (I Cor. 11:27).  This author felt the need to add to what Paul actually said and to emphasize that additional concept. After all, neither Jesus or Paul made any mention of being "well prepared." In the last sentence of this definition, the author again mentions being "unprepared" for the Sacrament. And so, being "unworthy" is doctrinally and conceptually synonymous with being "unprepared." 

But what is another oddity of this view (besides adding terminology to what Paul actually said)? One other oddity is that Paul is the only one who mentions worthiness. Jesus doesn't mention that at all. Now, I realize that the doctrine of plenary inspiration necessitates Paul's canonical words to be the authorized words of God, and since Jesus is God, Paul's words are the authoritative words of Jesus. However, isn't it a bit odd that the author insists that Christian beliefs should not contradict what Jesus Himself really says, yet the author doesn't even reference the actual words of Jesus regarding "worthiness"? Let's not forget that he adds to Paul's terminology as well. 

But this operating definition looks even more suspicious when viewed much closer. The author says that receiving the Lord's Supper involves "believing the words 'given and shed.'" Well, I certainly believe that the meaning of Jesus' words "given" and "shed" were in some sense involved in receiving the Supper. But the author of Lutheranism 101 simply takes for granted what that sense is without clarifying that Jesus' statements don't necessarily share the same assumptions as this Lutheran author. It's a subtle maneuver, but it's definitely there; and this traditional Lutheran assumption is arbitrary as well. Let's see how this plays out practically.

Notice carefully that this author sneaks in two ideas while assuming that they both share a literal one-to-one correspondence in meaning. The author doesn't prove it. It is assumed in advance and taken for granted. On the one hand he says that worthiness "involves believing the words 'given and shed,'" but on the other hand he says that worthiness "involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very (i.e. real or genuine) body and blood"; which is to say that if you don't believe you are receiving Jesus' real or genuine body and blood, you are not believing the words "given and shed." Did you catch that slight-of-hand too? He is assuming that the meaning of Jesus' words must share a literal one-to-one correspondence, but he's not telling you that the Words of Institution can mean something else, only one of which is that Jesus mysteriously amalgamated the real bread and wine with his real body "given" and his real "shed" blood. There are, in fact, other potential meanings to Jesus' Words of Institution. One does not need to adopt this traditional Lutheran assumption, especially if the Scriptures themselves do not infer that such assumptions are necessary to partake worthily or unworthily. 

Let's keep in mind what Jesus actually said in his Words of Institution:

This is my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me. ...This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

Let's now think of some alternatives. One possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his literal human flesh and blood. That is to say, those who partake of the bread and wine don't really partake of real bread and wine at all. They partake of something which appears to be bread and wine, but really is Jesus' flesh and blood. This, to me, seems to be an exaggerated claim. It assumes all sorts of things, one of which is that eating literal human flesh and blood would be lawful in God's sight, even though God strictly prohibits drinking sacrificial blood (Gen. 9:1-6; Lev. 17:10-14). Likewise, the Bible illustrates cannibalism in a handful of places, but it never condones it (Lev. 26:29; Deut. 28:53-57; 2 Kng. 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; Ezek. 5:10); rather it treats eating human flesh as a curse from God, which is probably why the Jews were abhorred by Jesus' words in John 6:52. They thought Jesus was speaking literally when he spoke of eating his flesh and blood; and so they thought, "How can this man [Jesus] give us his flesh to eat?"

Another possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his real body and blood, but only for his twelve apostles. That's at least possible. After all, he does say "this is my body...for you ...This cup is ...for you." And who was that particular "you"? It was the twelve apostles! Of course, because that seems to conflict with Paul's address to the Corinthian church, which included more participants in the Lord's Supper than just the twelve apostles, it's reasonable to conclude that such an interpretation would be completely arbitrary. Now, if there was a worldwide tradition which held that view, would you believe it just because it's traditional? I would hope not. Scripture itself should be the final authority for the Christian, not tradition.

Now let's consider the traditional Lutheran view again, only in more detail. The traditional Lutheran view is that Jesus' statement, "this is my body," was literally and mystically united with the bread in it's physical essence. I will admit, this is a possible interpretation. After all, when referencing the bread, Jesus does say "this is my body." Martin Luther himself is famous for this belief. There is even a famous incident at a meeting in Marburg, Saxony (modern day Germany) where various church leaders could not come to an agreement about Jesus' Words of Institution, and in the midst of the dialogue Luther began to pound his fist on the table, saying over and over again, "Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est corpus meum." ("This is my body, This is my body.")  In contrast with this famous incident, I find it very interesting that Luther did not insist in a literal interpretation of the phrase, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood." Luther interpreted the first statement as literal, but the second statement as representative and figurative. In other words, Luther assumed that the first statement was literal, and excused himself from needing to interpret the second statement as literal too, even though Jesus uses the exact same words to consecrate both elements. Jesus said "This [bread] is my body" and "This cup is the new covenant." 

Moreover, if Lutherans who hold to these traditional assumptions were consistent, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united his real (physical & spiritual, human and divine) body and handed it (his real body) to his disciples in the form of bread, and that he did the same thing with the cup too. That is to say, with the cup, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united the physical cup of wine in his hand as the literal new covenant itself. No other physical substance, other than the "cup" of wine, could possibly become mysteriously united with the new covenant. Jesus must have meant that the cup of wine would become the new covenant every time Christians partook of his blood "in a worthy manner." But what would it actually mean to literally unite a physical/non-spiritual cup of wine with a non-physical/spiritual covenant? Lutheranism 101 doesn't give an answer to that question, and I suspect that the traditional answer (if there even is one) would be arbitrarily based upon mere Lutheran tradition. Furthermore, why would anyone insist that such a distinction is essential to partaking worthily? One might expect Jesus or the Apostle Paul to have been a bit clearer in their presentation of the facts. (Were they clear enough?)

But let's get back on track with how serious the meaning of these Words of Institution are. Are these meanings the only viable options? The author of Lutheranism 101 is aware of at least one other optional tradition. He insists that,

...some [Christians] believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. 

He then asserts with great confidence that, 

To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution. 

That's quite an assertion. One would think that arbitrarily interpreting the bread as becoming his literal body, but the cup of wine not literally becoming the new covenant, would be a more blatant contradiction. And as far as I can tell, it's not contradictory at all to interpret both the bread and the cup of wine as representing Jesus body and blood. That, actually, would be very consistent and reasonable because the bread would represent his "given" body and the cup of wine would represent his "shed" blood. Neither the bread nor the cup of wine become anything other than sanctified bread and wine. Nothing mystical or supernatural invades or transforms the elements themselves. 

Moreover, if the bread and the wine of the new covenant represent the broken body and shed blood of Jesus which was given for us, then there would also be no need to strain the meaning of Jesus' words beyond what was actually spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the Apostle Paul. We wouldn't need to conjure up some rationale for Jesus uniting his "real" body and blood with a "real" loaf of bread and a "real" cup. We also wouldn't need to conjure up some strange "spiritual" extension of his dual-nature (as though the Scriptures allude to some extension, addition, or subtraction from his human & divine essence). And so, one very rational and reasonable meaning of the Words of Institution is actually what the author of Lutheranism 101 falsely claims to be contradictory, namely that the bread which Jesus broke represented Jesus' broken body, and that his blood shed on the cross was represented by a cup of red wine, and because of that participants in the Lord's Supper receive real bread and wine, not Jesus' real body and blood. Paul certainly seems to have interpreted it this way when he concludes, saying:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.4

Notice, Paul does not even come close to hinting in agreement with this claim of Lutheranism 101. Paul doesn't spend any time distinguishing between those who receive the real body and blood, and those who merely receive real bread and wine. Instead, what he says is that by eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper, they proclaim --they show forth-- their Lord's death. They don't receive the "real" body and blood of the Lord who died. They proclaim the Lord's death. They commemorate the unique covenantal meal in which Jesus and his disciples participated the night he was betrayed, leading to his death. In other words, when the Christian church eats the bread and drinks the cup, they don't proclaim the death of a literal Passover lamb, thereby renewing the old covenant. Instead, they proclaim their Lord's death over and over again as often as they do that together. They proclaim what the Passover lamb represented and what the old covenant anticipated. They ratify their covenant --the new covenant-- with Jesus. They receive a real covenantal meal, with real bread and wine, and they proclaim the real sacrifice for their sins -- Jesus Christ. One might even get the acute feeling that through faith, the Spirit of our risen Lord is present in the midst of his people as they feast on bread and wine together, uniting them in one love, one faith, and one baptism. If so, then thanks be to God.

1.  LCMS stands for Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
2.  "Very" means real or genuine.
3.  Scot A. Kinnaman [General Editor] Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 155
4.  I Corinthians 11:26

Fallen from God's favor

Last night I had a conversation with some good friends about meriting God's favor. In the end we all agreed that the language of "meriting" God's favor, even if it's being used in the narrow sense of pleasing God, is not wise in our current christian climate because it gives the impression that salvation can be earned. However, for those who know me personally, it probably won't come as a surprise that I had some lingering concerns about our current christian climate, and in particular the concern that christians shouldn't talk or think as though doing things -- literally any things -- could either decrease or increase God's favor upon an individual, especially christian individuals. This whole conversation arose from a study in Galatians chapter five. 

In Galatians chapter five, Paul speaks adamantly toward those Gentile christians within the Galatian church who are considering to accept the rite of circumcision on the terms of the "Juidaizers" who "wanted to distort the gospel of Christ" (Gal. 1:7) by teaching that God only justifies sinners in virtue of the Mosaic Covenant with Israel, through "works of the (Mosaic) Law." This first century controversy, in effect, convinced the Christian Gentiles of Galatia to voluntarily place themselves under the Old Covenant, thereby identifying themselves with the covenant-people of Israel, in order to receive a righteous standing before God; and that is patently false and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ and justification through faith in him alone (Gal. 2:15-21; Eph. 2:1-10). Paul even describes this particular worldview of judaism with which he was personally familiar as though it were a pagan and idolatrous system of worship that enslaved the human heart instead of freeing it (Gal. 4:8-11, 21-31; 5:1). And yet, after all of this contention with insidious Judaizers and the proselytes to Judaism which they nurtured and developed in Galatia, Paul declares emphatically that those Gentiles who have become tangled within this controversy and honestly think they are being justified by the Mosaic Law and its stipulated works "have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

Now, in our current Christian climate, it is presumed that Paul did not truly believe that a Christian could fall away from God's grace, because that would imply a loss of salvation -- a salvation which was granted unconditionally. In other words, it is presumed that Paul was serious in the tone of his warning but not in the actual content of his warning. That is to say, Paul is speaking rhetorically for the effect of appearing threatening, but the propositional threat itself was not true. That, to me, seems more like an idle threat than good rhetoric. And under such urgent circumstances like the situation in Galatia, an idle threat would not only be foolish, it would also be useless. These Christian Gentiles cannot have possibly fallen away from something that they did not have. In this case, it's God's favor. 

The most logical inference of this allegedly "idle" threat is that previously these Gentiles had been viewed as having obtained God's favor. In other words, they had been viewed as Christians by the Apostle Paul, and other Christians within the church of Galatia believed they were Christians too. And one of the benefits of that Christian faith is they had received God's favor. Paul thought they had received God's favor. They thought they did too.  If they didn't think that, Paul's warning would be absolutely meaningless. And it is that position of favor from which Paul says they "have fallen away from" (aorist active indicative of ekpipto) God's favor or "grace."

The apostle Peter speaks this way also in one of his letters. He says, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose (ekpipto) your own stability" (2 Pet. 3:17). The author of Hebrews is even more explicit in his language: 

Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:28-29) 

It seems to me that the apostles of our Lord Jesus christ were not speaking hypothetically when they described the certainty of God's promised, decreasing favor upon those who had been sanctified by the blood of His covenant and had outraged the Spirit of grace (i.e. the Spirit of favor).  Similarly, Paul speaks to the Colossian Christians as though they too could fall away from some kind of relationship with Jesus Christ. In Colossians 1:21-23, he writes:

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

In Paul's letter to the Gentile congregation in Rome, he writes concerning the covenant-body of Israel:

They [the covenant body of Israel] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. (Rom. 11:20-21)

The very clear inference of these statements by Paul is that the Gentiles who once were alienated and hostile in their minds toward God have now been graciously brought into a relationship with God where they (perceivably) are no longer hostile to God in their minds and are no longer alienated from God. Yet, Paul still speaks as though they were able, in some sense, to become lax, unstable, and irresolute in their faith, shifting away from the hope of the gospel that they heard and (apparently) received with favor. A few verses later (Col. 1:28) Paul states that all men need to heed this "warning" of God's gospel: "Him [that is, Jesus] we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ." The obvious implication of this "warning" is that these identifiable Christians could "shift from" the hope of the gospel, at which time God's warning would be appropriately given to them -- that warning being the promise of God's hostility toward them, the deliverance from which they did not deserve in the first place. And if the sovereign kindness of God placed the people of Israel into a covenant relationship with Him, and He eventually did not spare them, allowing them to "fall" because of their unbelief and pride, how much more is God's warning appropriate for Gentiles who receive God's kindness and yet are tempted to do the same?

It seems to me that in some sense, God's kindness can be diminished with those who are in covenant with Him. If this is true, one logical implication would be that God's kindness could also increase with those who are in covenant with Him. 

Now, I realize that in our current Christian climate, especially among "Baptistic" and "Calvinistic" circles of Christianity, it is likely that I will be accused of being Arminian, Palagian, semi-Palagian, and possibly even a total pagan for believing that Christians in covenant with God can do things which increase or decrease God's favor. That would mean, or so they might think, that Jesus does not cover all of their sins, or that Christ only covers their sins intermittently (covering them and uncovering them, and covering them back up again, etc.). But is that really true? Must we deny substitutionary atonement by affirming that God's favor upon His covenant people can increase or decrease depending on their faithfulness? It seems to me that no matter which Christian tradition we come from, both substitutionary atonement for Christians and the ability of Christians to fall away from God's favor are part of the clear language of God's Word; and first and foremost, as Christians, we ought to commit ourselves to the Word of God above all traditions. But does this mean that by accepting this peculiar biblical language about "falling away from grace" that other biblical doctrines are being compromised, even the doctrines of sovereign grace? Does this diminish God's sovereignty over all? Does this diminish the sinner's accountability to God one bit? Does this even imply that God is not worthy of our love, adoration, and respect? I don't believe so, and I'll tell you why. 

The language of God's Word also, and just as clearly, affirms that all men are completely dead in their sins (Eph. 2:1) and by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:2-3) and enemies of God by their very nature (Rom. 5:10) through their legal covenantal union with the first Adam who fell into sin in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3; Hosea 6:7; Rom. 5:12-19). Because of their union with the first Adam they are by nature slaves of sin (Rom. 6:20). God's Word is also very clear that no man who is dead in his sins is righteous in himself (Rom. 3:9-20), or can do things in himself which merit God's favor, thereby causing or stimulate God to make him righteous or even to give him an alien righteousness. All men have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and there is no one righteous, not so much as one (Rom. 3:10). Therefore the natural man, if he is to be righteous in God's sight at all, must be elected by God to partake of, and be covered by, His righteousness--the righteousness of the Righteous One (Rom. 3:19-26; 4:7; 5:1-21). 

Moreover, God does not base the foundation of His election on anything inherent within the individual sinner. God chooses to save sinners based on the gracious and kind intention of His own will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11). God's electing love, though sufficient for all and for all time, is for those whom God alone wills, and only for those whom He wills (John 6:37; 17:9). And because God has sovereignly, powerfully, and graciously saved a people for Himself, they have eternal security in Him (Rom. 8:1; John 10:27; I Cor. 10:13; Philip. 1:6).

And so, how does all of this fit together? How is the language of falling away from God's favor to be understood in light of God's favor originating and continuing from His completely sovereign grace?  

Are we to believe that God's favor is unlimited and static no matter what (that is to say, it doesn't move up or down or increase or decrease at all in time and history) for those who are in a covenant relationship with in Him? 

Are Christians, graciously placed within a covenant relationship with God, held to certain conditions which necessitate their faithful obedience, lest they fall away from God's favor?

I will gladly confess that it is a tremendous error to believe that spiritually dead men and enemies of God can do something to earn or "merit" God's favor in any sense. But is that true for those who are no longer spiritually dead and have been graciously placed within a covenant relationship with God? Is that true of people who are no longer considered God's enemies?  I get the funny feeling that Christians in our current climate get all flustered by this language because they equate a covenant relationship with God (something which contains blessings and curses and is objectively verifiable) as God's eternally electing, predestinating decree of salvation itself (something which man, in and of himself, could not possibly know because it's hidden within God's knowledge alone, Deut. 29:29). I also suspect that because such Christians don't want to attribute human perceptions of immorality to God (and His holy character), they don't like the thought of a God who would do such things as blessing them for obedience/faithfulness and cursing them for disobedience/faithlessness. They might think it's not "good" or "loving" or "gracious" for God to do that, especially if their righteous standing before God is because of the righteousness of another man who stands in their place (i.e. Jesus). 

But perhaps the most serious concern which stems from this apparent paradox is the thought that one could lose their regenerate or eternally elect status in God's sight if such things as covenant conditions (i.e. blessings and curses) were indeed true (and not just idle, hypothetical threats displayed for purely rhetorical purposes). The thought might be (i'm imagining) that no one can rest in any absolute assurance of salvation because God's covenant, through which he saves sinners, is conditional in some sense. And if it's conditional, after having already begun a work of regeneration, then one can lose his or her regeneration. Moreover, if it's conditional, God could not possibly predestine my eternal destiny, because it would change depending on something I do. 

Obviously, these apparent paradoxes are all serious concerns. And they all need to be addressed.

There is one thing Christians can be sure of, even when they are wrestling with this apparent paradox of "falling away from grace"; and that is the covenant faithfulness of God. God will always be faithful to the terms of His covenant with his people (Psa. 33:4; 36:5; 86:15; 89:1, 8; 115:1; Lam. 3:22-23; Rom. 3:3-4; I Cor. 1:9; 10:13; II Cor. 1:18; I John 1:9). But (and this is a big "but") if the terms of His covenant do include conditions, why would any professing "Christian" pretend as though His or her faithfulness will result in an eternal life in God's comfortable presence? In other words, why would a professing Christian presume that God's gracious covenant with them continues so that they could live sinfully? As the apostle Paul says, "Should we continue1in sin, that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1)?

In one of the following posts, I would like to offer a solution to this apparent paradox, but I can promise you that the solution won't be my own. In the following posts I would like to offer the solution presented by John Calvin, which was based upon his own study of God's Word. Now, I realize that our current climate of Christianity has many views, both pros and cons, concerning John Calvin the person and "Calvinism" as a theological think-tank, but I'm not going to offer a solution to this apparent paradox from our current "Calvinistic" climate. I'm going to offer John Calvin's own solution, which, as we'll see, is different from modern mainstream "Calvinistic" solutions. Stay tuned for those upcoming posts.

1.  The verb for "continue" in Rom. 6:1 is stated in the subjunctive mood, signifying possibility and potentiality. I prefer the HCSB translation which reads, "Should we continue...".  Other translations say "Are we to continue in sin?" (ESV), or "Shall we go on sinning..." (NIV). 

Colonizing Earth with the Life of Heaven

  The resurrection stories in the gospels aren't about going to heaven when you die. In fact, there is almost nothing about "going to heaven when you die" in the whole New Testament. Being "citizens of heaven" (Philippians 3:20) doesn't mean you're supposed to end up there. Many of the Philippians were Roman citizens, but Rome didn't want them back when they retired. Their job was to bring Roman culture to Philippi. 

  That's the point that all the gospels actually make, in their own ways. Jesus is risen, therefore God's new world has begun. Jesus is risen, therefore Israel and the world have been redeemed. Jesus is risen, therefore his followers have a new job to do. 

  And what is that new job? To bring the life of heaven to birth in actual, physical, earthly reality. ...The bodily resurrection of Jesus is more than a proof that God performs miracles or that the Bible is true. It is more than the Christians knowing of Jesus in our own experience (that is the truth of Pentecost, not of Easter). It is much, much more than the assurance of heaven after death (Paul speaks of "going away and being with Christ," but his main emphasis is on coming back again in a risen body, to live in God's newborn creation). Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of God's new project not to snatch people away from earth to heaven but to colonize earth with the life of heaven. That, after all, is what the Lord's Prayer is about.

  ...When Paul wrote his great resurrection chapter, I Corinthians 15, he didn't end by saying, "So let's celebrate the great future life that awaits us." He ended by saying, "So get on with your work because you know that in the Lord it won't go to waste." ...Every act of love, every deed done in Christ and by the Spirit, every work of true creativity -- doing justice, making peace, healing families, resisting temptation, seeking and winning true freedom, -- in an earthly event in a long history of things that implement Jesus' own resurrection and anticipate the final new creation and act as signposts of hope, [point] back to the first and on to the second.1

1. N. T. Wright, Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church [New York, NY: HarperCollins; 2008] pp. 293-295 

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part VI

As noted in the previous post, there is no theological contradiction between Paul's statement that Christ's body was broken and John's statement that not one of Jesus' bones were broken. But the discussion still ended with some lingering questions:  Even if there is no theological contradiction, what are we to make of Luke's account which does not say the exact same thing as Paul's?  Which statement did Jesus actually say?  Did he say "broken for you" or "given for you"?

I will attempt to answer this particular concern in this post.

When this series of posts began, I mentioned in passing that there seems to be an assumption that both Paul and Luke were attempting to provide an exact quotation of what Jesus said. Certainly, it is often assumed, Luke was quoting Jesus' exact words! Or, certainly Paul was. Really? Certainly?
What if neither of them were quoting Jesus exactly? Well, one may then object that it's impossible to know what Jesus actually said. At least, that's the allegation.  But let's back up the truck a bit. Is it impossible to know what Jesus actually said when instituting his Supper?  From this point forward, I am going to approach this concern with as much deductive reasoning as possible. My hope is that, in the end, the reader can, in fact, know what Jesus actually said, and might possibly be willing to go one step further by betting on that conclusion.

First, notice that Matthew's gospel doesn't record the exact same words as Mark or Luke. In Matthew's account (26:26), Jesus merely says "Take, eat; This is my body." In Mark's account (14:22), Jesus merely says "Take; this is my body." If this was all the textual evidence that we were left with, should we therefore assume that they both were intending to quote the exact words of Jesus in full?  Should we even assume that such assumptions were at least Matthew's, simply because his account has the longer reading (i.e. "Take, eat...")?

Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't have Paul's account, but we did have Matthew and Mark, as well as Luke's account which simply says, "This is my body given for you...". Should we therefore assume that Luke intended to quote Jesus' exact words simply because he provides the longest quotation? Certainly Luke was more likely to quote Jesus' exact words because his account is more complete, or so they say. To doubt Luke's more complete account of Jesus' words would be as foolish as doubting Thomas, or so they may say. Actually, the inverse is true. To doubt like Thomas is more like doubting that Luke's account is not a full quotation of what Jesus said. Thomas doubted because he assumed too much about two very different accounts: Jesus alive, and Jesus standing in front of him alive after dying. Likewise, sincere Christians assume too much about two very different accounts: the "full" account of Luke, and the "full" account of Luke after reading the accounts of Matthew and Mark.  Obviously, from the very texts themselves, Luke didn't find it necessary to insert the exact same words as Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark both say "Take, eat"; but Luke doesn't. Therefore none of them can contain the "full" quotation of Jesus if we assume that at least two of the three synoptic authors faithfully quote Jesus at all. All three can't be quoting Jesus in full. And so, isn't this prima facie1 evidence that our assumptions about Luke's quote being the full quote are mistaken?

Consider the alternative quotation from Paul's account in I Cor. 11:24. Look at the evidence in favor of the rite which he offers:

1. Paul was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. The only other account recorded for us by the hand of an apostle is Matthew. (Even though Mark accompanied Peter, and one can safely assume that Mark's gospel was aided by Peter, there is no evidence that Peter's own hand wrote it's content.) And we know, simply by comparing the synoptic gospels, that it's obvious Matthew did not intend to record Jesus' words at the Last Supper in full or with exact precision. Paul's account, therefore, carries some weight as the last remaining apostle to hand-write Jesus' words.
2. As was noted in an earlier posts, both here and here, the textual evidence also favors Paul's record, which says "Take, eat; this is my body broken for you...".
3. Paul's words include every single word which Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, with the exception of the word "given" in Luke's gospel.
4. Neither Matthew, Mark, or Luke go out of their way to claim or even imply that they intended to quote Jesus in full, or with exact precision. Rather, from their own omissions, it is conclusive that none of the synoptic authors intended to give a full, exactly precise quotation of Jesus' words, but rather the essential meaning of Jesus' words. After all, it's not like the exact words which Jesus used are magical. If one word is missing from Mark's gospel (i.e. "eat"), the message of Mark remains just as valid as Matthew's account, as well as the rite itself. Likewise, Luke omits the words "take, eat". This does not mean that Christians should freak out when their pastor chooses to consecrate the elements with Matthew's insertion of "take, eat". Both rites are proper and authoritative, and both accounts convey the same essential meaning of the rite which Jesus instituted.
5. Paul does, as a matter of fact, go out of his way to both claim and imply that he intended to quote Jesus in full. Whether he intended to do so with exact precision, must be left to conjecture. In I Cor. 11:23-24 (NKJV) Paul says:  "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Not only does Paul include everything contained within the synoptic gospels, but also, by saying rather clearly that he has delivered and is delivering unto them what he received from the Lord, he is saying, in essence, that this is what the Lord said, so continue to heed what He actually said.  
6. Also, Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians years before Luke wrote his gospel, which lends some more credibility to Luke's expansion of Paul's rite, as well as what Matthew and Mark recorded (assuming that Matthew and Mark's letters were available for him to give an orderly account, Luke 1:1-4).  Interestingly enough, we know that Luke was a companion of Paul's second missionary journey, and was with him in Corinth. It is also very likely that Luke was as an amanuensis of Paul during his missionary journey,2 which means that it is certainly possible, if not probable, that Luke modified the rite which Paul delivered unto the Corinthians. In other words, if we assume that one of two people, either Luke or Paul, had to modify the other's words, Luke is the most likely candidate. Luke may very well have been aware of the rite which Paul delivered unto the church of Corinth, having been there with him, and yet he chose to deliver his gospel with a variant form of Paul's rite. By modifying Paul's rite, "this is my body broken for you" to read instead, "this is my body given for you", the essential message remains the same. If such a modification was made by Luke, it was possibly, if not probably, for the purpose of avoiding any unpleasant connotations of the word "broken" to his audience, the "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3).
7. If Jesus really did actually say "broken", not "given" as it's found in Luke's account, there still remains no contradiction in meaning, because the meaning of the rite which Paul delivered to the church of Corinth conveys the same idea as Luke's account: the broken loaf of bread represents Jesus' broken body given for them.

If I were a betting man, I would call the bluff of modern translations concerning I Cor. 11:24 because the evidence is stacked in favor of the KJV translation. If the pot was higher than usual, I would then raise double that Paul records the actual words which Jesus said "the night in which he was betrayed".






1.  prima facie is Latin for "first appearance", and it describes something which, based on one's first impression of the evidence, should be accepted as correct until proven otherwise.
2.  For a convincingly detailed historical and textual account of these claims, see David Allen, The Lukan Authorship of Hebrews [B&H Academic: Nashville, TN; 2010]; Also, among the wide variety of discussions on the internet, a few of them caught my attention in the past: 
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/19990429/000452.html 
http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2010/02/luke-was-from-antioch.html 
http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com/2010/01/lukeluciusauthor-of-acts.html

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part V

As noted in the previous post, when compared with other available manuscripts, there isn't much evidence to lend credibility toward the presumption that the phrase, "this is my body broken for you," is an inferior textual variation; certainly no more credible than the claim of superiority attributed to the statement, "this is my body which is for you."  Rather, at best, modern theories of textual transmission merely provide a more convenient set of choices from which to choose textual variations that appear to contradict other theological doctrines.  In the case of I Cor. 11:24, modern theories of textual criticism make the latter option, "this is my body which is for you", the more convenient choice of text to harmonize with Luke's gospel, which, without any dispute, says "this is my body given for you."  The omission of Paul's insertion -- the insertion of the word "broken" in place of "given" -- is only deemed the more authentic choice by a fiat decree of modern scholasticism.  Even though I am by no means a "KJV-only" theologian, the sheer volume and widespread breadth of textual evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the King James translation of I Cor. 11:24 (i.e. "this is my body which is broken for you"), which does lend credibility to it's authenticity.1

Since the dispute can ultimately be reduced to an alleged theological dispute, and not a textual one per se, in this post I will attempt to tackle the alleged theological contradiction of the KJV translation.

Allegedly, if Paul really said "this is my body broken for you" then this contradicts the apostle John's theology that Jesus' bones were not broken (Jn. 19:36; Ps. 34:20).  Really?  A contradiction? Certainly it is undisputed that Jesus' bones were left unbroken.  And even more specific to John's gospel, the bones of Jesus' legs were not broken.   But are we to infer from Jesus' bones not breaking, that his body was not broken?

When handling the fulfillment of prophecy concerning Jesus' bones not breaking, the apostle John seems to be referencing Psalm 34:20.  In Psalm 34:20, King David is portrayed as the suffering servant who rejoices in the deliverance he graciously received from the Lord's hand.  And at the end of that Psalm, King David describes the righteous man who suffers as a servant of the Lord, and it is there that he says "[the Lord] keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken."  In quoting this Psalm, the typology of John's gospel presents Jesus as the greater David, the servant King who suffers as the righteous one par excellence.  And not one bone of any righteous one, especially not the Righteous One, will be broken.  David's teaching immediately prior to this is worth noting carefully. Psalm 34:19 (ESV), reads:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all. 

Notice carefully that the individual is considered in the mind of the Psalmist, which includes himself, but especially the most righteous individual in history.  Instead of affliction destroying the righteous one, it actually leads to the destruction of the wicked.  In the verse immediately following John's reference to Jesus (Ps. 34:21, ESV), it says:

Affliction will slay the wicked; and those who hate the righteous will be condemned.

In the context of John's gospel, which uses this Psalm to point to the fulfillment of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice of himself, those who were familiar with the Jewish scriptures probably knew this Psalm and identified with John's reference to it.  According to John and the Psalm from which he quotes, not only is some physical suffering of the Righteous One prophesied, but also the destiny of those who reject the Righteous one.  How righteous was Jesus, even though he was crucified as an unrighteous criminal by the world's standards?  His unbroken bones are proof of his righteousness; and those who hate the Righteous One will be condemned.

Furthermore, even though King David says that not one bone of the Righteous One will be literally broken, Psalm 34 is not the only prophetic Psalm with Christological implications.  In Psalm 22, David also foreshadows Christ's suffering on the cross, saying "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" (22:1; cf. Matt. 27:46), "they have pierced my hands and feet" (22:16; cf. Luke 24:39-40), and "they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots" (22:18; cf. John 19:24) while at the same time, and in the same Psalm, declaring that "all my bones are out of joint".  Is not the description of "all bones" being "out of joint" another way of describing his body being broken?  Isn't this clearly another Psalm which John says is fulfilled in Jesus' suffering on the cross (John 19:24)?

Which is it?  Were Jesus' bones broken or out of joint?  Is anyone even willing to allege that both propositions are contradictory?  Clearly this is a false dichotomy.  Both are possible and true.  The bones of Jesus' legs were not broken and Jesus' bones were out of joint.  The same can be truly said concerning Paul's use of the rite, "this is my body broken for you," when compared with John's theology. Not one of Jesus' bones were broken and Jesus' body was broken.

Many commentators over the last few centuries have also understood Jesus' body being broken as consistent with John's theology.2  For example, concerning I Cor. 11:24, John Calvin writes:

Which is broken for you. Some explain this as referring to the distribution of the bread, because it was necessary that Christ's body should remain entire, as it had been predicted, (Exod. xxii. 46,) A bone of him shall not be broken. As for myself, -- while I acknowledge that Paul makes an allusion to the breaking of bread, yet I understand the word broken as used here for sacrificed, -- not, indeed, with strict propriety, but at the same time without any absurdity. For although no bone was broken, yet the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many cruel tortures and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most cruel form, cannot be said to have been injured. This is what Paul means by its being broken.3

Now, let's go back to earlier concerns and try to tie this all together.  Let's go back to the allegations of John's theology contradicting Paul's.  John was certainly describing literal bones being broken as a fulfillment of Scripture.  But was Paul describing literal bones being broken?  Was Paul even describing Jesus' body being broken literally?  After all, keep in mind that Jesus' body was present when he said, "Take, eat; this is my body."  How much more then was it intended to be literal if he said that this "body" of his is "broken for you"?  Perhaps Paul only intended a symbolic "breaking" of Christ's body.

As long as we are using the Scriptures to interpret themselves, no matter which way one answers these questions, there is no contradiction to be found.  If one assumes that Paul was describing literal bones being broken, all one has to do is provide a counter-appeal to his actual words, which said that his body was broken, not his bones.  If one insists that Jesus' literal body was broken, all one has to do is affirm that proposition, because his body was broken (according to Psalm 22, which John quotes alongside Psalm 34).  If one wants to argue that Paul wasn't speaking of a literal breaking of Jesus' body, but instead was concerned with some purely symbolic parallel between breaking bread and Jesus' body, then there shouldn't even be a concern over an alleged contradiction.

One concern may still remain though: Even if there is no theological contradiction, what are we to make of Luke's account which does not say the exact same thing as Paul's?  Which statement did Jesus actually say?  Did he say "broken for you" or "given for you"?

I will attempt to answer this particular concern in a future post.

1.  The manuscript support for the KJV translation of I Cor. 11:24, which says "this is my body broken for you," can be found in 42 manuscripts, not including many extra copies of Syriac Peshito translation collected over the past few centuries. These 42 manuscripts which support the insertion of the word "broken" in I Cor. 11:24 are: Codex Aleph (4th century, corrected), C3 (5th century), Db (6th century), Codex Athos (8th century), Dc (9th century), G (9th century), K (9th century), P (9th century), minuscules 81 (1044 A.D), 88 (12th century), 104 (1087 A.D.), 181 (11th century), 326 (12th century), 330 (12th century), 436 (11th century), 451 (11th century), 614 (13th century), 629 (14th century), 630 (14th century), 1241 (12th century), 1739 (10th century, marginal note), 1877 (14th century), 1881 (14th century), 1962 (11th century), 1984 (14th century), 1985 (1561 A.D.), 2127 (12th century), 2492 (13th century), 2495 (14th century), the Byzantine Lectionary (547 A.D., but the origins of which trace back to the 4th century), Old Latin manuscripts d (5th century), e (9th century), and g (9th century), Syriac Peshito (4th century or earlier), Syriac Harclean (sixth century), Gothic (4th century), and references from Ambrosiaster (4th century), Basil (379), Chrysostom (407), Euthalius (5th century), Theodoret (466),  and John-Damascus (749). 
2.  John Wesley, David Guzik, and John Gill are but a few more examples of commentators who shared this view.
3.  John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, Vol. I [Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI; 1989 reprint] p. 381

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part IV

As noted in the previous post, most modern translations reveal that, when handling the textual variations of I Cor. 11:24, the superior reading is "this is my body which is for you." This conclusion has been reached because the other options have been ruled out due to "inferior" qualities. For example, as far as manuscript evidence for I Cor. 11:24 is concerned, there are no Greek manuscripts that are identical with Luke's statement (i.e. "this is my body given for you"). The complete lack of Greek manuscripts automatically qualifies that peculiar textual variation as inferior in the eyes of modern textual critics; and rightly so. It is very difficult to imagine anyone attempting to reconstruct an original Greek translation using only non-Greek                             manuscripts. In theory that is possible, but it's not likely.1

This leaves only two more possible statements by Paul, one of which says "this is my body shattered for you," and the other which says, "this is my body broken for you." The big problem with the first reading is that only one manuscript from the fifth century contains it, and it is not even the primary text on the surface of that manuscript either, but rather is the faded, partially erased handwriting contained alongside the rest of the text. And furthermore, that manuscript in which it is found also happens to be a bilingual manuscript, and the Greek text differs with the corresponding text in the accompanying language! In other words, the Greek text which says "this is my body shattered for you" doesn't even translate properly with the corresponding text within the same manuscript! It doesn't take much imagination to understand why this is considered an inferior reading. The manuscript in question has words which have probably been erased and written over numerous times by various scribes, and the additional word -- "shattered" -- doesn't even correspond with the other language in which the manuscript is translated.

This leaves us with one last option to consider: the phrase, "this is my body broken for you". Much to my own surprise, when I looked into the supporting manuscript evidence for this variation by Paul, I found that there is an overwhelming amount of textual support for it. But as I mentioned at the beginning of the last post, the Greek text which underlies the KJV -- the translation which provides this textual variation -- is "generally regarded as an inferior form" and "the least valuable".2  One of the reasons this textual variation is considered inferior is because it appears to contradict the theology of John's gospel, which says that not one of Jesus' bones would be broken. But besides that apparent theological contradiction (which will be explained in a future post), the only other reason for disregarding the KJV translation is because the modern theory of textual transmission is so radically different than the one used for the KJV.

And so, since the entire widespread transmission of manuscript evidence in support of the King James translation are presumed to be an inferior form and the least valuable of all manuscript traditions, this only leaves one "superior" reading of text from which to choose: "this is my body which is for you"; and that variation of text is found only in modern translations of the Bible.

But what most scholars don't tell you is this: There are only seven copies of Scriptural manuscripts copied with the original Greek language that contain this allegedly "superior" reading. Let me repeat that information just in case it slipped by you unnoticed: there are only seven copies total which contain a Greek reading. Admittedly, one of the seven manuscripts is definitely old, dating to around A.D. 200;3 and two more manuscripts which also agree are purported to originate in the fourth century.4 But that minuscule amount of early manuscript evidence hardly justifies its "superior" quality. Even if you include the remaining four Greek manuscripts into the equation, two of which come from the fifth century,5 and the remaining two from the 9th century and later,6 the blatantly obvious flaw with this theory is that the presumably "superior" reading is found in only seven copies of the Greek New Testament, and only three of them are very old!

Add to this list only six more references7 mentioned in passing8 by theologians who lived around the south & south-eastern border of the Mediterranean (which also happens to be the same general location from which the three very old Greek manuscripts originated!), and one Armenian translation dated in the 6th century (which, interestingly enough, was also translated from Greek manuscripts located in the south-eastern border of the Mediterranean), and what you find is that the total combined amount of manuscripts in support of the modern "superior" reading is a whopping fourteen, and only one of them is a legitimately older copy of the Greek New Testament (p46) -- that is to say, legitimately older than the copies which support the allegedly "inferior" KJV manuscripts. And remember, all of them originate from the same general south & south-eastern border of the Mediterranean, and no where else in the world. To some seriously invested and hostile critics of the KJV, this might not appear to be enough evidence to place the text of modern translations in a position of inferiority, but this is only what a cursory glance has to offer us.

The manuscript evidence which supports the KJV also has early support ranging all the way back to the 4th century,9 but a lot of scholars instinctively regard those textual variations as unimportant because they presume that entire textual tradition is inferior. But in fact, this can't be the case because, with respect to I Cor. 11:24, two of the manuscripts which contain the "superior" reading also contain the word "broken" (as found in the KJV) on the main page. And one of those manuscripts is even considered to be one of the oldest Greek manuscripts ever discovered! At some point in time, perhaps immediately upon copying those manuscripts, perhaps centuries later, the word "broken" was hand-written on the face of those manuscripts as an alternative rendering.

Consider this evidence also: there is one other "superior" manuscript which contains the "inferior" textual variation underlying the KJV translation, but that inferior text is written in the margin of the manuscript, not the face. The bottom line of what I'm saying is that three of the seven copies of the Greek New Testament which support the "superior" text also contain the inferior text as well, which is evidence that the allegedly inferior text had an early existence alongside other early manuscripts.

If one were to question the modern theory of textual transmission and the alleged "inferiority" of later manuscripts which support the KJV translation, there wouldn't be much evidence remaining in favor of the statement "this is my body which is for you." In fact, apart from the six references made in passing from early theologians (in the 3rd, 4th, & 5th centuries), the manuscript evidence would reduce to only two manuscripts which fairly represent the "superior" reading: one from the 5th century (Codex A) and one from the 9th century (minuscule 33).

The question may still be asked, "What is all of this supposed to mean to me?"

Well, when compared with other available manuscripts, there isn't much evidence to lend credibility toward the presumption that the phrase, "this is my body broken for you," is an inferior textual variation; certainly no more credible than the claim of superiority attributed to the statement, "this is my body which is for you." Rather, at best, modern theories of textual transmission tend to provide a more convenient set of choices from which to choose textual variations. In the case of I Cor. 11:24, modern theories make the latter option, "this is my body which is for you", the more convenient choice, not the more authentic choice. The sheer volume and widespread breadth of textual evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the King James translation of I Cor. 11:24 (i.e. "this is my body which is broken for you").10

In the next post of this series I will attempt to tackle the alleged theological contradiction of the KJV translation.

1.  That is to say, it is unlikely apart from the exception of an extremely rare occurrence within the Greek text that necessitates the correction of incomplete syntax, and that incomplete section of syntax can only be fulfilled when an older manuscript of a different language (like Latin) is used. One possibility of this rare occurrence is found in I John 5:7-8.
2.  Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Oxford University Press: New York, NY; 2005] p. 67, 70
3.  Ibid.,  p. 54; The one genuinely old manuscript containing I Cor. 11:24 is Papyrus 46.
4.  Codices B (Vaticanus) and Aleph* (Sanaiticus)
5.  Codices A (Alexandrinus) and C* (Ephraemi)
6.  Minuscules 33 and 1739*
7.  Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century), Origen of Alexandria (3rd century), Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century), Pelagius of Rome (late 4th century), Cyril of Alexandria (5th century), and Fulgentius of North Africa (late 5th century).
8.  As Jakob Van Bruggen has succinctly noted, "It also often appears that the Church Fathers only quoted in part and freely, so that one can hardly conclude from the form of their quotation the form of the text they read in the New Testament." Jakob Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament [Premier Publishing: Winnipeg; 1994, fifth printing] p. 22. Also, in a critical review of the textual critic, Kurt Aland, the New Testament scholar, Wilbur Pickering, notes that "Something Aland does not explain, but that absolutely demands attention, is the extent to which these early Fathers apparently cited neither the Egyptian nor the Majority texts -- about half the time. Should this be interpreted as evidence against the authenticity of both the Majority and Egyptian texts? Probably not, and for the following reason: a careful distinction must be made between citation, quotation, and transcription. A responsible person transcribing a copy will have the exemplar before him and will try to reproduce it exactly. A person quoting a verse or two from memory is liable to a variety of tricks of the mind and may create new readings which do not come from any textual tradition. A person citing a text in a sermon will predictably vary the turn of phrase for stylistic reasons. All Patristic citation needs to be evaluated with this distinction in mind and must not be pushed beyond its limits." -- Wilbur Pickering ThM PhD, A Review of "The Text of the Church," by Kurt Aland [Trinity Journal, 1987; published in the Spring of 1989] 8NS:131-144
9.  Codex Aleph (Sanaiticus) has been dated as one of the "oldest" Greek manuscripts in existence, and it contains a faded, hand-made correction of the word "broken" in I Cor. 11:24. Also, Basil of Caesarea, Chrysostom of Constantinople, and Pseudo-Ambrose -- all 4th century theologians -- include the word "broken" in their references to I Cor. 11:24. Also, the Byzantine Lectionary (547 A.D.), which originated during the 4th century, contains a reading of I Cor. 11:24 with the word "broken" in it. And finally, the Gothic and Syriac Peshito translations of the 4th century both contain it; most noteworthy about the Peshito translation is that its textual tradition assuredly dates from at least the late 4th century. Some textual critics, such as Frederick Scrivener in his classic work, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, have even suggested that it's regular use in worship can safely be traced back to the 2nd century. The textual critic, Dean Burgon, also contended for the plausibility of the Syriac Peshito translation originating in the 2nd century, although he admits that there is no extant manuscript which can be dated prior to the late 4th century.
10.  The manuscript support for the KJV translation of I Cor. 11:24, which says "this is my body broken for you," can be found in 42 manuscripts, not including many extra copies of Syriac Peshito translation collected over the past few centuries. These 42 manuscripts which support the insertion of the word "broken" in I Cor. 11:24 are: Codex Aleph (4th century, corrected), C3 (5th century), Db (6th century), Codex Athos (8th century), Dc (9th century), G (9th century), K (9th century), P (9th century), minuscules 81 (1044 A.D), 88 (12th century), 104 (1087 A.D.), 181 (11th century), 326 (12th century), 330 (12th century), 436 (11th century), 451 (11th century), 614 (13th century), 629 (14th century), 630 (14th century), 1241 (12th century), 1739 (10th century, marginal note), 1877 (14th century), 1881 (14th century), 1962 (11th century), 1984 (14th century), 1985 (1561 A.D.), 2127 (12th century), 2492 (13th century), 2495 (14th century), the Byzantine Lectionary (547 A.D., but the origins of which trace back to the 4th century), Old Latin manuscripts d (5th century), e (9th century), and g (9th century), Syriac Peshito (4th century or earlier), Syriac Harclean (sixth century), Gothic (4th century), and references from Ambrosiaster (4th century), Basil (379), Chrysostom (407), Euthalius (5th century), Theodoret (466),  and John-Damascus (749). 

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part III

As noted in part two of this series of posts, there definitely are variations of statements found among the manuscripts of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, particularly the statement made in I Corinthians 11:24. And there are also many presumptions about those variations too, namely that the older manuscripts which support modern translations are better than the later manuscripts which support the King James Version (KJV).


According to Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, in their highly acclaimed book, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, the manuscripts which provide the textual support for the KJV translation are "generally regarded as an inferior form"1 and "the least valuable"2 among all that have been preserved.

The question still remains, how does one assess the value or inferiority of a given rendering so that they can be sure it's the correct one? This post will focus on answering that question, or at least leading into a focused answer to that question; and I will do so by continuing the discussion about varying theories of textual transmission (which I mentioned briefly in the last post).

Also, keep in mind that, as I noted carefully in the last post, I am not a "KJV-only" theologian. I cannot stress this fact enough. I am, in fact, very much opposed to KJV-only-ism because there is simply too much scholarly evidence which conflicts with that ism. The main reason why I repeatedly mention the KJV is to illustrate an english translation based upon a older theory of textual transmission -- a theory which is no longer popular today. The popular modern theories of textual transmission operate on a presumption that certain older manuscripts are "superior" than others. I wish I could, in all honesty, agree with that presumption. That would certainly make this translational difficulty much more convenient to resolve. But I don't agree with that presumption because there isn't enough uniformity among the older, allegedly "superior" manuscripts to convince me that the oldest manuscripts represent an authentic copy of what Paul wrote.

As far as manuscript evidence is concerned, the translations found in the ESV and KJV are not the only options available. There are a few choices to be found among the manuscripts which contain I Corinthians 11:24.  Some manuscripts say "This is my body which is for you." Some manuscripts say "This is my body which is broken for you."  One manuscript even says "This is my body which is shattered for you" (literally, "this is my body which is broken-in-small-pieces for you"). And finally, some manuscripts say "This is my body which is given for you," as it's found in Luke's gospel.

But which manuscripts provide the "superior" preservation of Paul's words?

Modern textual critics contend that the oldest copies of manuscripts available to us today represent the most "superior" and "valuable" manuscripts ever copied in the history of textual transmission. Because of this, the text contained within these older manuscripts are considered to be the most superior as well.3 They don't claim that the oldest are perfect, but when compared with manuscripts dating hundreds of years after the first century, the oldest are presumed to be more authentic and closer to what was originally written. In this sense, the older manuscripts are more-perfect, and presumably so, because they were copied in a time which was much closer to the date of the original perfect manuscript. I think this is a huge presumption, and, in many instances of translational disputes, it's an unnecessarily clumsy one as well.

As Dr. Jakob Van Bruggen has succinctly noted in his book, The Ancient Text of the New Testament:

One of the first things a student must learn regarding the textual history, is the distinction between the age of the manuscript and the age of the text offered in that manuscript. A rather young manuscript can give a very old type of text. 

...You would expect that... people in the modern New Testament textual criticism would hardly argue from the age of the manuscript. However, the opposite is the case. Time and again you come across a comparison between "older manuscripts" and "many, but younger manuscripts." The common argument used against the Byzantine text-type [which underlies the KJV translation] is even that this type is only found in young manuscripts. This argument, however, does not say anything as such. One must prove that the text-form in these manuscripts is also of a later date.4 

1.  Bruce Metzger & Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It's Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Oxford University Press: New York, NY; 2005] p. 67
2.  Ibid., p. 70
3.  No scholar has ever affirmed (at least, not to my knowledge) that the manuscripts underlying the King James Version are not as old as the manuscripts discovered since then (i.e. manuscripts which are used as the basis for all modern translations). It's obvious that modern translations use older manuscripts. The real contention comes into play when the age of the underlying text within a manuscript is being disputed, which is the case in point when considering a modern translation of I Cor. 11:24. Based on external evidence, the text which underlies the KJV is considered a "late text" on the alleged grounds that it is not found in the old majuscules and is not followed by the Church Fathers before Nicea in their New Testament quotations. Based on internal evidence, it has also been alleged that the text which underlies the KJV has the tendency to conflate, harmonize, and assimilate readings, and that also leads scholars to believe it is a "late text". These allegations, pertaining to both external and internal evidence, have been clearly and cogently refuted by many reputable and competent New Testament scholars. Jakob Van Bruggen, Harry Sturz, and Wilbur Pickering are but a few scholars who contend with these allegations of external and internal evidence.
4.  Jakob Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament [Premier Publications: Winnipeg; 1994, fifth printing] p. 22. Words in brackets are mine.

Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part II

As noted in part one of this series of posts, from the historical perspective of English translations, there are three possible statements of Jesus while instituting his Supper:

1)  Jesus said "this is my body for you" with no reference to his body being "broken" or "given".
2)  Jesus said "this is my body broken for you" (not "given").
3)  Jesus did indeed say "given for you" (not "broken").

In light of the fact that there are three alternatives from which to choose, a few factors need to be discussed and settled before reaching any definitive conclusions. First, it's important to ask whether all three statements work together. If they all comport with each other, then there is no reason to dispute any of the readings. But it seems as though the answer to that question is easy to provide if one only looks into a modern translation. Luke's gospel says "this is my body given for you," which does allow some wiggle-room for Paul to say "this is my body for you." Paul just has to omit the verb "given" and then we have two verses which, in the very least, don't contradict each other. At first glance this seems to provide some agreement between Paul's words and Luke's.

But the problem with Paul's letter is that we have a variety of manuscripts which say more than just "this is my body for you", which is the reading contained in most modern translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, etc.,). The KJV translates I Cor. 11:24 as saying "this is my body broken for you" because there are many manuscripts which contain the verb "broken". Other manuscripts containing I Cor. 11:24 say "given for you" (just like it's found in Luke's gospel), and one even says "shattered for you" (literally, "this is my body broken-in-small-pieces for you"). And so the question about the KJV translation (i.e. "this is my body broken for you") working well with Luke's version (i.e. "this is my body given for you") still needs to be asked. At first glance the answer is no. Luke says "given", and Paul, in the KJV, says "broken".  I suppose the only way to dodge that bullet is to argue that Jesus said both words (i.e. "this is my body broken and given for you"), without having any manuscript evidence to support that claim.  There simply is no manuscript evidence to support the use of both words in one statement, and so the answer to the opening question is that all three statements do not work together because, in the very least, Paul's statement -- "this is my body broken for you" -- does not agree with Luke's statement. This conclusion also assumes that both Paul and Luke were attempting to provide an exact quotation of what Jesus said (which is a conservative assumption).

A second factor which needs to be taken into account is the manuscript evidence itself, but that is a very broad subject in itself -- so broad, in fact, that I need to be very careful in what I present as helpful information. Most people are not interested in tedious, technical, textual information about a language that's foreign to them, and so I don't plan on discussing any of that. And if it turns out that I have to mention a little about that, I will wait until it's absolutely necessary; and when it is necessary, I plan on keeping such technical information to an absolute minimum.

Aside from whatever technical information may eventually need to be discussed, a third and far more important factor concerning the manuscript evidence is the theory of textual transmission which underlies each translation. Modern translations, such as the ESV, definitely operate with a different theory of textual transmission than older ones (such the KJV). Even though the ESV and the KJV both use a classical method of textual criticism, they do not operate with the same theory of textual transmission; and this is an important distinction to acknowledge because one's theory of textual transmission affects the selection of all available material and the trustworthiness of evidence on which to base a given text. In other words, when faced with different renderings of a given verse (e.g. I Cor. 11:24), one's theory of textual transmission affects the way in which one determines the "best" text. It also affects many attempts to identify and eliminate perceived errors that are found even in the "best" manuscripts.

But don't misunderstand my purpose in pointing out this major difference between old and new English translations. Modern translations are necessary, helpful, and very reliable. I am not an advocate of "King-James-only-ism," nor will I ever be (primarily because I actually have studied a lot of evidence pertaining to its viability as a theory). But modern translations are not perfect, nor are their theories about textual transmission. And this will become important to remember when we have to sort through some technical information later on in this discussion. It is not always necessary to jump on the bandwagon of belief that modern translations (like the ESV) are better than older ones (like the KJV). It is because modern translations are not perfect, nor have they ever claimed to be, that we must be, in the very least, somewhat hesitant to jump on this bandwagon.

But we still need to ask, in what way does one's theory of textual transmission affect the translation of Paul's letter to the Corinthians?

If a modern theory proposes that the manuscripts transmitted to the translation committee of the KJV were not "trustworthy", then that affects one's assumption about it's authenticity. And when we finally need to sort through some of the technical information at a later time, presumptions about the authenticity of the text which underlies the KJV seems to be a very important factor underlying the omission of the word "broken" in modern translations of I Cor. 11:24. If the KJV used manuscripts that are presumed to lack authenticity, and those manuscripts say "this is my body broken for you," then that presumption theoretically helps narrow the "likelihood" of what Paul actually wrote. In other words, it makes the job of modern translators that much easier if they can discard hundreds of manuscripts which are presumed to lack authenticity.

But there is another factor to consider when deciphering a text's authenticity (or lack thereof): the factor of theological contradictions. This too plays a part in the textual dispute of I Cor. 11:24. Wouldn't Paul's statement, "this is my body broken for you" contradict John's statement that Jesus' bones were not broken (John 19:36)? And if it contradicts other doctrines of Scripture, is that not also evidence of a manuscript which lacks authenticity?

The factors of theological contradictions and manuscript evidence will be discussed further in the next post, but for now, I hope this helps clarify that there are a lot of important factors and hidden presumptions involved in determining differences in translations. Some translational differences are easy and simple to settle because the errors are so elementary and plain, but others still remain truly difficult. Not many remain difficult, but some for sure. What perplexes me is when textual critics and scholars notice a truly difficult text to sort through, but yet, because they are committed to advancing modern theories of textual transmission, they gloss over the difficult text -- which may be the authentic one -- and proclaim dogmatically which reading is obviously "better" and more "trustworthy". Modern theories of textual transmission allegedly sort out many of the difficulties -- even the difficult renderings found among the manuscripts of Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

• But does anyone seriously believe that the modern theories of textual transmission are inerrant? 
• Is it possible that Paul actually said "broken," and modern translations of I Cor. 11:24 have made a mistake by omitting the word "broken" from the text? 
• Is there really a contradiction to be found in Paul's statement if the word "broken" remains?
• And is it necessary, or even essential in this discussion, to assume that both Paul and Luke were attempting to provide an exact quotation of what Jesus said?

In following posts, I plan on discussing a few important assumptions, as well as the alleged theological contradictions of I Cor. 11:24. But I promise to keep the technicalities to an absolute minimum.