Christ's Body: Broken or Given? Part I

I recently shared in a discussion with a faithful Christian brother about Paul's words in I Corinthians 11. In I Cor. 11:23-26, the English Standard Version (ESV) records these words:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for [footnote] you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The "footnote" which I added in brackets is important because it states that "some manuscripts" contain the words "broken for". I will discuss more about the importance of this footnote in part 2 of this series of posts.

Let's now compare the ESV with the New King James Version (NKJV). The words are recorded as follows:

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same 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." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes.

Which is it? Did Jesus say "This is my body for you" or did he say "Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you"?

In Luke's gospel, the Word of Jesus are also different from what Paul records concerning the institution of the Lord's Supper (but they read the same between the NKJV and ESV). Luke 22:19-20 (ESV) records Jesus' words as follows:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

So now, from the historical perspective of English translations, we have three possible statements of Jesus: First, he said "this is my body for you" with no reference to his body being "broken" or "given"; second, he did indeed say "broken for you", not "given"; and third, he did indeed say "given for you", not "broken".

• Which one is it?
• Which of the two translations contains the "better" reading?
• Why are there three different options from which to choose?
• Why did the ESV translators choose a different reading than the NKJV?

Some important answers to these questions will be discussed in Part II.

The Beatitudes: Rules or Virtues?

In the book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, N.T. Wright comments about Jesus' promises of "blessings" upon obedient servants of God. Wright observes:

Jesus is not meaning either "If you can manage to behave in this way, you will be rewarded" (a kind of legalist solution) or "now that you've believed in me and my kingdom project, this is how you must behave" (the sort of thing some post-Reformation theology might insist on) -- though the latter is closer to the truth, albeit not in the sense usually imagined. To shuttle between those two options is to remain impaled on the horns of a philosophical dilemma and its theological ramifications rather than coming round the corner to see things from Jesus's very first-century Jewish point of view. 

What Jesus is saying, rather, is, "Now that I'm here, God's new world is coming to birth; and, once you realize that, you'll see that these are the habits of heart which anticipate that new world here and now." These qualities -- purity of heart, mercy, and so on -- are not, so to speak, "things you have to do" to earn a "reward," a "payment." Nor are they merely the "rules of conduct" laid down for new converts to follow -- rules that some today might perceive as somewhat arbitrary. They are, in themselves, the signs of life, the language of life, the life of new creation, the life of new covenant, the life which Jesus came to bring.  

...[T]he Beatitudes could be mistaken for a set of rules. They aren't, however. They are much more like virtues, and that's how they work: grasp the end, the goal, the telos, the future, and go to work on anticipating it here and now. That doesn't mean (as I keep stressing) that there are no such things as rules; as we shall see, the Beatitudes are both guidelines for those who are learning virtue and a checklist to which virtuous Christians can refer from time to time. But to read the Beatitudes as rules is to miss the point.  

...God wants you to be, as we might put it, humans rather than puppets. You will have to think about it, to struggle with it, to pray for grace and strength; but it is at least now within reach. ...The authenticity that really matters is living in accordance with the genuine human being God is calling you to become. What the ancient Law really wanted -- genuine human life, reflecting God's glory in the world -- will start to appear.1

1.  N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 103, 106-108

Worshipping and Reigning: The Telos of Human

Bishop N.T. Wright comments further about the the apostle John's vision in the book of Revelation and how one's understanding of that vision affects Christian character in the present time, prior to Christ's return, and also the goal of what he calls "genuine humanity".  He writes: 

The early Christians held out a breathtaking, radical vision of the ultimate goal of all things: the new heavens and new earth, the renewal of all things, the new Jerusalem "coming down from heaven to earth" (Revelation 21:2), a world flooded with the joy and justice of the creator God.  

... The Bible opened, as we saw, with God assigning a particular vocation to human beings: that they should look after God's creation and make it fruitful and abundant. The Bible closes with a scene in which this has at last come about, only far more so. Forget the vague and wishy-washy piety which speaks of "heaven" simply as a place of rest and adoration. ...In the final chapter of the Bible, we find two things highlighted as the central activities of human beings within God's new creation... 

...Worshipping and reigning: those are the twin vocations of the new people in the new city. 

... There can be no mistake. The book of Revelation, so often dismissed as merely dark, strange, and violent, holds out a vision not only of all creation renewed and rejoicing, but of human beings within it able at last to sum up the praise which all creation offers to its maker, and to exercise that sovereignty, that dominion, that wise stewardship over the world which God always intended for his image-bearing creatures. They will be priests and rulers, summing up the praises of all creation and exercising authority on behalf of God and the Lamb.  

... [T]he "new Jerusalem" in chapters 21 and 22 is designed, it seems, to be like the Temple. There is no specific Temple in this new city because the city itself is a Temple, or rather is the true Temple, the reality toward which the Jerusalem Temple had been pointing all along. Its measurements and adornments speak of this, as do the rules for its holiness (21:8, 11-21, 27; 22:3, 15). This, John is saying, will at last be the reality of which the Garden of Eden itself, and then the ancient Jerusalem Temple, were foretastes. This is the place where the living God dwells, the place from which his healing river will flow out to refresh and cleanse the whole world (22:1-2). Kings and priests, set now in a throne room, now in a Temple. That is the goal, the telos, of Human.1

1.  N.T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 77-81

Magdeburg Confession of 1550

A new English translation of a very important historical confession has recently been released for sale: The Magdeburg Confession of 1550. Until this edition was published in the fall of 2012, I believe it has only been available in Latin and German. It may not be in print for long, so make sure to get it sooner than later.

The pastors of Magdeburg issued this confession on April 13th, 1550, as a response to the tyranny of Charles V.

• What constitutes a tyrannical government?
• How ought Christians to behave when faced with conflict from their own tyrannical government?
• Are Christians supposed to obey a tyrannical government without limitations? 
• If so, what are those limitations?

These questions and others are answered by the pastors of Magdeburg in their Confession. In response to Charles the fifth's tyranny, they declared, "Divine laws necessarily trump human ones."

This English translation is translated by Dr. Matthew Colvin, who holds a Ph.D. in Latin and Greek Literature from Cornell University. It contains a detailed historical introduction by Dr. George Grant, Pastor of Parish Presbyterian Church, Founder of New College Franklin, President of King's Meadow Study Center, Founder of Franklin Classical School, and author of dozens of books in the areas of history, biography, politics, literature and social criticism. The foreword is by Matthew Trewhella, Pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church, Milwaukee, WI.

Humanity and its Goal

In his book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, Bishop N. T. Wright discusses the telos, or goal, toward which all of human existence aims. He writes:

Creation, it seems, was not a tableau, a static scene. It was designed as a project, created in order to go somewhere. The creator has a future in mind for it; and Human--this strange creature, full of mystery and glory--is the means by which the creator is going to take his project forward. The garden, and all the living creatures, plants and animals, within it, are designed to become what they were meant to be through the work of God's image-bearing creatures in their midst. The point of the project is that the garden be extended, colonizing the rest of creation; and Human is the creature put in charge of that plan. ...And that, as the New Testament declares, is also the goal for which we are aiming--indeed, the goal of all human existence.1

1. N. T. Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters [Harper One: New York, NY; 2010] pp. 74-75 

Matthew: Symmetrical Sermons

In Matthew: His Mind and His Message, Peter F. Ellis provides a helpful symmetrical (chiastic) outline of Matthew's gospel:

Sermon                                           (f) ch. 13

Narratives                              (e) ch 11-12     (e') ch 14-17

Sermons                            (d) ch 10                  (d') ch 18

Narratives                      (c) ch 8-9                         (c') ch 19-21

Sermons                    (b) ch 5-7                                 (b') ch 23-25

Narratives           (a) ch 1-4                                            (a') ch 26-28


Ellis then rightly observes that the sermons are:

...artfully balanced both in length and subject matter, with the first (5-7) and the last (ch 23-25) concerned principally with the theme of "discipleship"; the second (ch 10) and the fourth (ch 18) with the mission of the Apostles and the use of apostolic authority in the community, and the central discourse (ch 13) with the Church as Kingdom of heaven on earth. Such an arrangement and symmetry can hardly be a matter of chance.1

1.  Peter. F. Ellis, Matthew: His Mind and His Message (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1985) p. 14 

Pillars of Matthew

As Peter Leithart has aptly noted, "One of the most obvious things about Matthew is that it includes five large sections of teaching."1  From this there follows what was noted in a previous post (cf. The Importance of Red Letters, Sept. 2012), namely that chapters 5-7 begin the first of those five lengthy sections of teaching in Matthew's Gospel (chs. 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25).

Not only are the five lengthy discourses of Jesus evident simply by flipping through any conveniently colored Bible with the words of Jesus in red, but Matthew appears to have intentionally placed five distinctive phrases within his gospel to distinguish the end of each section. Each of the five discourses end with an identical phrase, "when Jesus had finished" (7:21, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1, 26:1), indicating that Matthew structured his gospel around those five discourses.

1. "Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching..." (7:28)
2. "Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities." (11:1)
3. "When Jesus had finished these parables, he left that place." (13:53)
4. "When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan." (19:1)
5. "When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples..." (26:1)

This five-fold structure of Matthew's gospel has also been noted by a wide variety of biblical scholars. For instance, F. F. Bruce points out the intentionality of Matthew's main structure in one of his famous books, stating that:

The sayings of Jesus are arranged so as to form five great discourses, dealing respectively with (a) the law of the kingdom of God (chapters 5 to 7), (b) the preaching of the kingdom (10:5-42), (c) the growth of the kingdom (13:3-52), (d) the fellowship of the kingdom (chapter 18), and (e) the consummation of the kingdom (chapters 24 to 25).2 

In his famous exposition of Matthew's gospel, D. A. Carson says:

The point is that the five discourses are sufficiently well-defined that it is hard to believe that Matthew did not plan them as such.3

And even though R. T. France finds the "geographical outline of the story" to be "more satisfying" than  discerning Matthew's narrative structure through "verbal division markers",4 he nevertheless admits in his massive commentary on Matthew's gospel that:

Recent discussion has often focused on the search for fomulae which may be taken to mark structural divisions. By far the most prominent is the slightly varying formula which concludes Matthew's five main collections of Jesus' teaching...(7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1).5

Likewise, Craig Keener remains skeptical about how to interpret the five-fold structure of Matthew, but he nevertheless points out its plausibility in his socio-rhetorical commentary on Matthew's gospel:

This Gospel [i.e. Matthew] may divide chronologically into three sections; the teaching material divides topically into five. ...Most scholars identify five discourses by the closing formula "when he had finished speaking" in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1.6

According to Peter Leithart, these five discourses of Jesus are intentionally highlighted by Matthew and "are like five pillars that hold up the book of Matthew"7, set between the Gospel's own opening and closing statements -- statements which mirror the opening "book of Genesis" and closing "Decree of Cyrus".8

1.  Peter Leithart, The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010) p. 121
2.  F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981; first published in 1943) pp. 37-38
3.  D. A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1984) p. 51
4.  R. T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007) p. 4
5.  Ibid., p. 2
6. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) pp. 36-37
7.  Peter Leithart, The Four: A Survey of the Gospels (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2010) p. 121
8.  Ibid.