Broken For You?

 A friend recently raised a question about why, on serving communion, it is said on sharing the bread, “This is my body broken for you.” Is that a correct expression? Is it even something to be concerned about?

Ostensibly, this is what our Lord Jesus Christ said on the last Passover he shared with his disciples before his crucifixion. But is it? Where would one find the answer to that? Understandably, one could check the Gospels that provide a record of the event - as remembered by the time they wrote it down, don’t forget. But even there, at the most, perhaps two - Matthew and John - were present. When it comes to John though, Bible scholars have proposed three possible authors? The Apostle, another disciple named John (whether in fact or to provide authority for his writing, a not uncommon practice at the time), and an apparent John the Elder of Ephesus (The Apostle John was himself believed to have spent time in Ephesus). Of course, many Bible scholars will argue that none of the Gospels were written by those whose names are attached but that’s another discussion. There is some question as to whether (John) Mark was present but Luke certainly was not. 

All such discussions aside, what do the Gospels say? A quick look reveals this:

Matthew 26: 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Mark 14: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." 

Luke 22: And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." 

Then, surprise, John, who, if the Apostle or another disciple named John was present (as per authorship discussions mentioned above)’ does not even record this so-called institution of the Lord’s Supper. Might we at this point ask why? We know it was written much later than the other Gospels. Perhaps he thought, given  that the Church had been carrying on the practice of sharing The Lord’s Supper for years already, that it was no longer necessary to bring this up. Instead, he records an event not found in the other gospels, namely, what some regard as the institution of the practice of footwashing. Why would he do this and the other gospel writers not? I am not suggesting an answer to the second part of this question at present. However, although we digress somewhat here, there is a possible answer as to why he would have recorded the footwashing incident. 

If this Gospel was written in Ephesus by either the Apostle or the Elder, some believe, knowing from the writings what was developing in the region at the time, and adding to this clues from the contents of the gospel itself, that it was written, at least in part, to combat Gnosticism. Practitioners of Gnosticism, it might be fair to say, given that part of the teaching was about esoteric, knowledge and practice open only to a select few, were prone to pride. Another element of this thinking was that Jesus was, but only at some level (not fully God), divine, and that physical things were less important (reflecting long-held Greek philosophy), negative, if not downright evil. Perhaps John, whoever he was, thought that he needed to bring forward footwashing to help reestablish human contact, touch, that Jesus did practice such with his followers, (there is no other reference in the gospels to Jesus to touching his followers, although there are many of him touching those to whom he ministered) but even more importantly, to remind Jesus’ followers of his teachings on servanthood and humility.  

We still have not answered the question, where does "broken for you" come in then? Bible students will quickly point out that it comes from the writings of the Apostle Paul. Now, he was not one of the original disciples, and would not have been present at the time Jesus celebrated this last Passover. Therefore, one would expect that whatever he wrote was based on what he heard from people who were present during Jesus' life. However, we find that on the one occasion where he does go into some length talking about The Lords Supper, he states that what he is passing on, is what he "received from the Lord” (see below). This sounds like he received it directly. The only explanation for that would be that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or some unrecorded, direct revelation to Paul, was responsible for his writing in this way. This is what he then wrote:

Corinthians 12: For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of me." 

Or is that what he wrote? Neither the new international version, or the new revised standard version translations include that phrase, "broken for you." Instead, one can find footnotes, saying that “some ancient manuscripts add this phrase.” Evidently, the consensus of those who carried out these translations were that older manuscripts did not have the phrase, and we generally regard older writings as more valid. 

So, where does the phrase come from? The phrase has been familiarized through the Authorized (King James) Version translation. However, that work was accomplished in 1611, at which time those working on the project did not have many of the manuscripts we now have. It would appear that, based on the manuscripts modern scholars have access to, that the majority do not have that phrase, or, I expect, it would still be in our Bibles.

So, in the end, we are probably raising, in some ways, an unimportant question.  Particularly if we except that supposedly more authoritative manuscripts did not have this phrase. Why other manuscripts do, is not something I have a proposed answer for either.

However, there is one other important point that could be relevant here. The Gospel according to John, and it is the only one that does so, records that Jesus' legs were not broken on the occasion, whereas those of the two men crucified on either side of him were. This was to hasten their death, as Passover was coming and the Jews would not allow bodies to hang on the cross during that time. Crucified persons could hang on the cross for long periods of time otherwise. It is immediately after recording that Jesus bones were not broken, but that his side was pierced, that the writer of John's Gospel states that "these things occurred so that the scripture might be fulfilled, "none of his bones shall be broken.” This can be traced back to Exodus 12:46, where, on the institution of the Passover, it is recorded that "the Lord said to Moses… You shall not break any of (the lamb's) bones." This particular detail of the password instructions is reiterated in Numbers 9:12 "they shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone of it; according to all the statutes for the Passover, they shall keep it." However, the passage that is perhaps most often quoted in relation to this whole issue is Psalm 34:19–20 "many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord rescues them all. He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.”

Jesus was regarded as a perfect Passover lamb, whose sacrificial death totally accomplished what all previous sacrifices were unable to do. I stress perfect, because even reading those Old Testament instructions for Passover indicate that the lamb was to be without blemish and intact. Therefore, it follows that Jesus body, if anything, should be more perfect and whole. Of course, we do have the nails that pierced his body and the sword that pierced his side, but these were more measures that separated, skin, and other tissue, more than break anything, particularly bones, which is what the Passover instructions explicitly prohibit.

Including this in his story, the writer of John could be trying to emphasize how Jesus was a completely adequate and perfect sacrifice. Yet, it took a body to be sacrificed, which give the physical body high value. Again, such thinking would counter that of the Gnostics who sometimes gave the body little value.

In conclusion, given that modern translations no longer use the phrase "broken for you" and that, according to scripture, the Passover lamb's bones were not to be broken, perhaps it is time that we abandon the phrase "broken for you” when we serve communion. Is "given" not enough?