Eden's Courtesy

One of my favorite poems by C. S. Lewis:

Such natural love twixt beast and man we find

That children all desire an animal book, 

And all brutes, not perverted from their kind, 

Woo us with whinny, tongue, tail, song, or look;

So much of Eden's courtesy yet remains.

But when a creature's dread, or mine, has built

A wall between, I think I feel the pains

That Adam earned and do confess my guilt.

For till I tame sly fox and timorous hare

And lording lion in my self, no peace

Can be without; but after, I shall dare

Uncage the shadowy zoo and war will cease;

Because the brutes within, I do not doubt,

Are archetypal of the brutes without.1

1.  C. S. Lewis, Poems [Harvest/HBJ edition; 1977] p. 98

Retrogression Part II

In the previous post, I mentioned a discussion between two Reformed friends; and I was one of them. I also mentioned that I requested his permission to post our discussion on my blog for future record, and that my request was granted favorably. Also, as noted before, the discussion was heading in the direction of a major dispute until the point in which I asked some questions. My questions focused upon his assumption that certain reformed leaders, such as  John Calvin, John Knox, and John Owen, were all opposed to formal liturgical worship services. In essence, I was questioning his belief that "The Reformers" (as he called them) were anti-liturgy.

My friend also proceeded to argue that most of the Westminster Divines were opposed to liturgy, but for the remnant who favored formal liturgical worship throughout the reformation, they were allegedly stuck in the rut of "medieval thinking" and "popish" traditions without enough discernment to realize the dangers inflicted upon future generations by their cowardice. Again, the claims of cowardice, as noted in the earlier post, are his words, not mine.

Well, I had a few more words to discuss with him about the convenience of using such loaded derogatory claims as "medieval thinking" and "cowardice", especially without any further evidence - other than his claims - to present in defense of his position. But now that the week is over and I've had some more time to reflect upon our discussion, I feel like I can focus upon his concerns by posting a few relevant insights that are not my own, but rather are from a very well respected Reformed Christian scholar. Robert Letham is that scholar, and he has written a tremendous book about the historical context surrounding the Westminster Assembly, detailing many of the controversies surrounding the Calvinist communities of England, whose theology continued to be the backbone of the Church of England until the 18th century.

In his book, The Wesminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context, Letham writes concerning the modern 21st century notion that the regulative principle, as presented within the Westminster confessional standards, was anti-liturgy:

We need to appreciate how the regulative principle functioned in the historical context of the [Westminster] Assembly. ...The focus of these statements cannot be understood apart from the draconian legislation that governed worship in the Church of England, whether it was observed more in the breach or not. The Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer (1559), which restored the Book of Common Prayer of 1552, specified:

That all and singular Ministers, in any Cathedral, or Parish-Church, or other place, within this Realm of England, Wales, or marches of the same... shall... be bound to say and use the Mattens, Evensong, Celebration of the Lord's Supper,... and all their common and open Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book.1

If any Minister decided to rebel against this legal demand and refuse to use the precise order and form of the latest edition to the Book of Common Prayer, or even "declare or speak anything in the derogation... of the said Book ...and shall be thereof lawfully convicted, according to the laws of this Realm, by verdict of twelve men, or by his own confession ...[that person] shall lose and forfeit... all his Spiritual Benefices, or Promotions, coming or arising in one whole Year next after his Conviction."2

Letham points out that an offender would also face imprisonment for six months without bail for the first offense, and upon the conviction of a second offense, the penalty was imprisonment for one full year and the removal of all ministerial promotions. On a third offense, the person would receive life imprisonment. Even the layman, the common ordinary person with no ministerial status, could be punished for sedition against that Act of Uniformity. The fines for publishing articles or pamphlets against the Book was punishable by a fine of 100 marks, the second offense by 400 marks, and the third offense requiring the offender to "forfeit to our Soverign Lady, the Queen, all his Goods and Chattels, and shall suffer Imprisonment during his life."3

Letham then concludes with these interesting observations:

When we reflect on the drastic imposition of the Book of Common Prayer by the Elizabethan settlement and its aftermath, we see why the Assembly produced a directory of worship giving freedom to individual ministers to conduct worship services within the boundaries of the regulative principle of Scripture. It was the binding legal requirement, imposed by the crown, with penalties attached, that was the real nub of the problem with the liturgy for Puritan minds. While opposing the legal imposition of set liturgies, the [Westminster] Assembly was not abandoning liturgies as such. The Directory for the Publick Worship of God [produced by the Westminster Divines] contains a range of model prayers to be used in the regular service, at the start, before the sermon, after the sermon, before and after baptism, during and after communion, at the solemnization of marriage, in visiting the sick, and at public solemn fasting. Even John Owen, a few years too young to have been appointed to the Assembly, when writing on liturgies, stressed that he was not opposed to them or to the Book of Common Prayer, but to their imposition by law, with the forbidding of the slightest deviation from the set words. The standard practice of the Reformed churches had been to have a liturgy with set prayers; the problem for the divines was the rigid imposition and the repressive, punitive sanctions for failure to comply.4

But what about the Divines antagonism to liturgy, and the "medieval thinking," "popish traditions," and generally ill-discerned "cowardice" of those who sympathized with liturgical forms of worship? My friend has yet to post the sources of information in favor of his perspective.






1.  Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading its Theology in Historical Context [P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ; 2009] p. 301-302
2.  Ibid. p. 302
3.  Ibid.
4.  Ibid., pp. 303-304 Explanations in brackets are mine

Retrogression Part I

In some confessionally Protestant churches, the regulative principle of worship is purportedly the basis for rejecting formal liturgical worship services (and books), such as covenant renewal worship (and the Book of Common Prayer).  Some even go so far as to presume upon all liturgical traditions as though some form of compromise has been made with "popish" and pagan traditions -- traditions saturated with doctrines that stand against the "truths" of Scripture.

I am mentioning all of this now because I was recently reminded by a dear brother and Protestant friend, albeit in a polite manner, that the church in which my own immediate family attends regularly and are members, does not worship "biblically," and never can because we promote one of the many formal liturgical forms of covenant renewal worship. By adhering to covenant renewal liturgy, not only have we been accused of worshipping contrary to the Scriptures, but we are assured that the Scriptures only promote the Regulative Principle of worship as understood by the Reformers. They brought to light what was buried in darkness by "popish" and pagan traditions for too long!

My friend also appealed to "the Reformers'" rejection of liturgy, noting such famous works as John Owen's Discourse Concerning Liturgies, and  The Chamber of Imagery in the Church of Rome Laid Open. Of course, God's Word itself was projected as the ultimate appeal of authority (as it should), but unfortunately, in our discussion it was almost always with the proviso that the new covenant of God's Word only promotes a regulative principle that is anti-liturgy. He meant well in teaching me this, as he assured me. But regardless of whether someone endorses the regulative principle of worship or not, or even John Owen's polemics, how is a christian brother supposed to respond to such allegations?

I did respond to his questions and we did have a healthy discussion for about ten more minutes. After our conversation was over, I asked him if I could post our discussion on my blog and even answer his questions online for future review. He said yes, as long as he is allowed to respond to my posts. I agreed. So to continue where we left off, I have included a sampling of a few things I mentioned to break the ice and steer our conversation in a healthier direction. I hope this helps others too (especially those who share the same Reformed persuasion as my friend).

First of all, I asked who the "Reformers" were that (he claims) "properly understood" the regulative principle? He responded, "Calvin, Knox, Owen" as though his response was rehearsed. And so I continued to ask, "What makes you believe that the 'Reformers' like Calvin, Knox, and Owen didn't continue to worship with liturgical books and formal liturgical patterns of public service? I mentioned that Martin Luther did. John Calvin did. Martin Bucer did. John Knox did. And that John Owen wasn't opposed to prescribed liturgies per se, but rather the legally binding imposition of prescribed liturgies which violated the conscience of individual Ministers. I think that caught his attention, because there was no other rehearsed response to the contrary. Instead, his response was simply, "I'm not so sure about that. I'll have to look into that and get back to you."

I then proceeded to ask him what he thought about the Westminster Divines and their views about formal liturgical worship. I asked, "Do you believe the Westminster Divines were opposed to liturgical books and worship services?" I asked this because I suspected his awareness of the Westminster confessional standards being used among modern adherents of the anti-liturgical approach to the regulative principle of worship. His answer was basically yes, but with a certain caveat attached. He proceeded to argue that most of the Divines were opposed to liturgy, but those who were not were stuck in the rut of "medieval thinking" and "popish" traditions without enough discernment to realize the dangers inflicted upon future generations by their cowardice.

I'm not kidding, and neither was he; That was his argument.

Again, how is a christian brother supposed to respond to such allegations?

Liturgy: Not just a book

In the book, New Creation: A Liturgical Worldview, Frank Senn discusses the comprehensive scope of liturgy and what it generates when routinely imbibed:

When one speaks… of the Roman rite or the Byzantine rite orthe Lutheran rite, one means the whole way in which these communities of faithinitiate and form members, choose leaders and exercise roles in the assembly,care for their members in crisis situations and reach out to non-members, andreact to the crises that constantly affect the community as a result of itshistorical journey. Liturgy understood as ritein this sense is not just a particular order of worship or a system of rubrics.It is not just a book. …When liturgy is consistently and routinely done, itgenerates its own way of life, its own culture, which may be critical of thecultures of this world, but is not itself uncultural. Nor are the people whoconstitute the assembly called out of the world unearthly, disembodied spirits.They are cultural beings who bring their cultural expressions and practices tothe assembly with them. However, these expressions and practices aretransformed by their use in the liturgy.1

Understanding Christian liturgy as a rite in this sense, how important is liturgy to you?

Should it be more important than it currently is in your life?

1.  Frank C. Senn, NewCreation: A Liturgical Worldview [Fortress Press: Minneapolis, MN; 2000] p.8

Perfecting One's Own Ruin

In the year 1692, Thomas Shepard, the Puritan, published a masterpiece of spiritual insights titled The Sincere Convert.  Midway through that book, Shepard proposes a scenario where the question is asked, "How [do] men plot and perfect their own ruin?".

He lists four answers to that question, the second of which is: "By reason of man's carnal security, putting the evil day from them, whereby they feel not their fearful thralldom, and so never groan to come out of the slavish bondage of sin and Satan."1

Many pages later, Shepard continues this train of thought concerning the second answer, maintaining the same Puritanical candidness:

God may absent Himself from men weeks, months, years, [and] men shed not one tear for it, because they never tasted the sweetness of his presence. It is strange to see men take more content in their cups and cards, pots and pipes, dogs and hawks, than in the fellowship of God and Christ, in word, in prayer, in meditation; which ordinances are burdens and prison unto them. What is the reason of it? Is there no more sweetness in the presence of God's smiling in Christ than in a filthy whore? Yes; but they know not the worth, sweetness, satisfying goodness of God.2 

[The] false spirit, having given a man comfort and peace, suffers a man to rest in that state; but the true Spirit, having made the soul taste the love of the Lord, stirreth up the soul to do and work mightily for the Lord. Now the soul crieth out, What shall I do for Christ, that hath done wonders for me? If every hair on my head were a tongue to speak of his goodness, it were too little. (Neh. vii. 10,) "The joy of the Lord is our strength." (Ps. li. 12,) "Uphold me with thy free spirit;" or, as the Chaldean paraphrase hath it, thy "kingly spirit;" the spirit of adoption in God's child is no underling, suffering men to lie down, and cry, My desires are no good, but flesh is frail.  No, it is a kingly spirit, that reigns where it liveth.3

There is something about Shepard's insights which makes me wonder why many Christians don't express a desire to have this 'kingly spirit'.  

Why are many Christians quick to acknowledge the sweetness and satisfying goodness of God (as Shepard does), but not in a manner which exemplifies a kingly spirit in themselves?

If Shepard is correct in his insights, might not the absence of a kingly spirit indicate that a slavish spirit of bondage to sin remains in one's life?




1.  Thomas Shepard, The Sincere Convert and The Sound Believer [Soli Deo Gloria: Morgan, PA; 1999; reprint of the 1692 edition] p. 68
2.  Ibid., p. 91
3.  Ibid., p. 87

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