Please Explain I Corinthians 11:1-16

In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Paul gives some ordinances, customs, or signs of authority to women concerning their hair. Would you please explain this passage?

There is perhaps no more difficult passage within the New Testament as this one discussed. In large part this is a difficult passage because in order to understand it, one needs to understand some of the customs that surrounded the church in the city of Corinth. This is indicated in verse sixteen, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” Paul writes this particular passage of scripture to a group of people who are already “in the know” as to the particular situation in which the Corinthian Christians were as far as custom was concerned. On the other hand, Paul makes it clear that there are some clear principles that are involved which are inviolate in regard to the Christian being pleasing to the will of God. This is indicated in strongly in verse two, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” One must practice the customs as dictated by the principles. The principles are eternal. The customs are transitory. What are the principles set forth in this passage? What are the customs set forth in this passage? Herein lies the basis for our ability to properly understand.

First, there are some very definite principles that are set forth in these verses (2, 3). These principles are contained in verses two and three. These principles are inviolate and Paul expects the Corinthian Christians to respect them. They are that God the Father is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of men; and men are the head of the women. This is not talking about equality, but structure of authority. Christ is equal to the Father, but is subject to Him as pertains to His mission. Women are equal to men, but in the matter of authority, they are to be subject to the decisions of men. This is God’s structure of authority and it must be respected under all circumstances.

Second, there were some practices that were common to the first century which reflected this authority structure (vs. 4-6). Failure to observe these practices brought dishonor upon both Christian men and women. However, these practices were part of the culture of the day and in no way reflect any abiding principles. The only principle that we can observe from these practices is that if in our culture we have some practices that reflect God’s authority structure, we too must humbly accept those practices as well to reflect our deep and abiding respect for God’s will. The practices that were involved at Corinth were the practices of 1) The man having his head covered. 2) The man having his head uncovered. 3) The woman having her head covered, and 4) The woman having her head uncovered. Paul tells us in light of these practices what either dishonored one’s authority or honored one’s authority. These are verses four through seven. Note the following: 1) A man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his authority. 2) Every women who prays or prophesies having her head unveiled dishonors her authority. Why are these things the case? They are the case because 1) when a woman goes about unveiled, it brings shame to her and 2) when a man goes about with a cover on his head this indicates that he does not respect the fact that he is made in the image of God. Why is it specifically the case that a woman who does not wear a veil brings shame upon herself? Why specifically is it the case that when a man wears a cover he indicates that he is not made in the image of God? The answers to these two questions lie in the customs of the culture in which the Corinthian Christians were.

Corinth is located in Greece and thus would be subject to the culture of Greece inasmuch as that culture reflected and respected God’s authority structure. Inasmuch as the culture did NOT respect and reflect God’s authority structure, then the Corinthian Christians were NOT to follow those examples. What was it about the culture that reflected God’s authority structure? First, it was the common practice of the Greek men of that day to wear a cover on their head if they were slaves, but to not wear a cover on their head if they were free. Christians of that day were made up of both slaves and freemen. We have already seen from the letter to the Corinthians that the church had a problem with divisions. One of the divisions that they had and which also affected the way they partook of the Lord’s supper in the later part of the chapter was in association to who was a slave and who was free. When in the body of Christ, however, there are no distinctions between slave and free (1 Corinthians 7:22). All are one in Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) and free. It would, therefore, be disrespectful to Christ as head to indicate such a distinction while in His body. In other words, if a man wore a head covering in the assembly, that would indicate that he was a slave to another man instead of free in Christ. The man who owned him would be honored, but Christ would be dishonored. Hence, all men were to have their heads uncovered so as not to bring dishonor upon their authority, Christ.

As respecting women, their authority is man. There was a custom throughout the ancient world regarding women as well. The International Bible Encyclopedia says, “In NT times, however, among both Greeks and Romans, reputable women wore a veil in public (Plutarch Quaest. Rom. xiv) and to appear without it was an act of bravado (or worse).” In essence the implication is that to appear without the veil would bring shame upon the woman’s authority–man. To appear with this veil would bring honor to her authority as well as to the authority structure of God. Hence, it was appropriate for her to wear this veil in respect of God’s authority structure. Additionally, there is some evidence that prostitutes of that day flaunted this custom in order to be more appealing to their clientele. The discarding of the veil might lead some men to conclude that she was trying to identify with women of a baser sort. This also would bring disrespect upon God’s authority structure in that she would not be showing the proper relationship between men and women in dealing with sexuality, that of husband and wife exclusively. Paul’s comments regarding a woman not being covered being the same as if she were shorn, are not to be taken literally. Rather, they indicate the degree to which the woman should go if she were not to respect the authority structure. If she is not going to wear the veil, then why not go ahead and shave the whole head and take all covering off.

Paul next turns to the application of the principles to the practice in Corinth (vs.7-10). In the context of the culture of Corinth, Paul states the principles of God’s authority structure as applied to the customs of the day. A man is created in the image of God. Therefore, he needs to reflect that image in the church in showing his subjection to God — not to other men (as might be the case of a slave). To do this, he must ensure that his head is uncovered. On the other hand, the woman is the glory of the man–she was created out of his bones and to provide help and companionship to him. Therefore, she ought to show this in her behavior as a Christian woman and due to the presence of angels in the worship assembly. (To indicate to one of God’s angels in the worship assembly that a woman does not respect God’s authority structure is to indicate the same to God.) She shows the proper respect for God’s authority structure in this culture by wearing a veil.

From this discussion, however, Paul does not want the Corinthians to get the impression that men are to have an attitude of domination over women so he gives additional admonition in verses 11, 12. Both men and women are of God (vs. 12), so men ought not to think that men can be pleasing to God by rejecting women altogether out of the common worship assembly. And that as far as their relationship to the Lord is concerned, they are equal.

Paul next turns toward some self evident judgments that indicate God’s authority structure as applied in Corinth (vs.13-15). He asks them, based upon their experience and judgment in living in the city of Corinth as citizens what appears appropriate and what does not. The rhetorical question indicates that it was not appropriate for women to pray without a veil. In fact, their own experience in being citizens of Corinth taught them that it is a shameful thing for a man to have long hair, but it is a glory for a woman to have long hair as a covering. The word “nature” here does not necessarily mean that one is born with the specific knowledge that long hair is good for men and bad for women. It merely indicates something that has been habitually observed by the culture for a long period of time. This same phrase is used in Ephesians 2:3 where it is indicated that they were by nature children of wrath. Just as no one is born committing the sin of anger, so also no one is born knowing the difference between long and short hair. It is something that must be taught.

Finally, Paul addresses the possibility that someone might object to these thoughts regarding the application of the principle (vs. 16). As far as the practice of the church is concerned, there is no such custom. The wearing of the veil should not be considered something that is binding upon all churches in all circumstances. If a visiting woman were to pass through the church at Corinth and worship with them, they should not consider it obligatory to bind upon her the same customs that they bind upon themselves.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Please Explain I Corinthians 11:1-16

Please Explain what Ephesians 5:4 means as to foolish talking nor jesting.

Please explain what Ephesians 5:4 means as to foolish talking nor jesting.

Ephesians 5:3-7 we read, “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.” The context in which Ephesians 5:4 resides is within a discussion of abstinence from sexual temptations. Fornication refers to any consummate sexual act outside of the marriage bond. Uncleanness refers to acts which are less than fornication, but still sexual in nature. Covetousness in this context refers to thoughts and lusts regarding uncleanness and fornication. Remember the very first thing forbidden to covet in the Ten Commandments is one’s neighbor’s wife (Exodus 20:17). Covetousness can, therefore, have reference to sexual desire as well as desire for physical things and this context bears that out. Subsequent to the text under question we have a repetition of the same warnings regarding fornication, uncleanness, and covetousness. Those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom and cannot be a part of God’s kingdom. Those who practice such things merit the wrath of God. Those who practice such things are partakers with the children of disobedience. The Christian is admonished not to be part of this type of mentality.

Sandwiched in between these two stern condemnations of sexual avarice we find a rebuke regarding a specific kind of speech as well. The King James Version reads, “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.” The English Standard Version translates this verse as follows: “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.”

The word “filthiness” is a translation of a word that some scholars say is limited to speech. This is the only place where this word is found in the New Testament and it is within the context of speech. It has as part of its base the same stem that makes up the Greek word that we translate “shameful” and given the context, the shame would be in association with unlawful promiscuity. It is also rarely used in classical Greek as well and when it is, has reference to things that are lascivious in nature.

The phrase “foolish talk” is a translation of one Greek word and is a fairly straightforward and literal translation. In this context, foolish talk would be anything that might embroil one in a situation where one would be tempted to commit some kind of sexual sin. This word also is only used this one time in the New Testament and its context would seem to define for us what it is referring to.

Finally, we find the word “jesting” as translated by the King James Version and “crude joking” as translated by the English Standard Version. I like this translation, though it doesn’t give the specific kind of crude joking that this word is describing. The word literally involves a turn of a phrase. In English today we would refer to it as a double-entendre where something seemingly innocent is said, but it really has a second meaning that is sexual in nature. To quote from one commentator, (Lenski, pg. 596) “The three may refer to speech, the last two certainly do so. And because of the context these are given a sexual coloring. How worldlings so generally love nasty stories, throw out silly, vile remarks, crack supposed jokes of a spicy kind!” With his comments we certainly agree and in today’s world we are seemingly bombarded endlessly with such nasty speech. It comes to us from our work environment, from the places where we socialize, from our own television sets during popular sitcoms–there seems to be no end to the number of ways that men and women today can joke regarding things that are best left discussed in the privacy of the bedroom of a husband and wife. Let us as Christians resolve to rid our minds of such thoughts and should we have such thoughts to never let them pass through our lips. And if we have been guilty of speaking in such a way in the past, let us strive to do better in this regard.

I would like to mention one more thing, in contrast to this type of base humor, there is nothing wrong with humor that is instructive and decent in nature. This passage does not deal with all kinds of humor, only with the kinds that involve matters of sexual promiscuity. For a Christian to tell a perfectly innocent joke to another Christian is often fun and can be instructive if the joke has a certain point that is being made regarding a particular kind of behavior.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Please Explain what Ephesians 5:4 means as to foolish talking nor jesting.

What is the “Day” of Hebrews 10:25

We read in Hebrews 10:25 “as you see the day approaching.” What is that day?

The “day” of Hebrews 10:25 is none other than the day of judgment. If we continue reading in the context we find in verse 27 that those who sin willfully can expect judgment–condemnation. Verse 30 says that vengeance belongs unto the Lord and verse 31 declares, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

The word judgment in verse 27 comes from the Greek word that can often indicate condemnation. In the context of the book of Hebrews, the writer is urging Christians who are also of Jewish descent not to turn back to the worship and practice of Judaism. He sets forth much evidence not to do this. His theme is, “The way of Christ is the better way.” He reasons that the way of Christ has a better mediator than Moses (1-4). The way of Christ has a better priesthood than Aaron’s (5-7). The way of Christ has a better sacrifice than that of bulls and goats (10). The way of Christ has a better covenant than that of Moses (8,9). The way of Christ is the way of faith (11). During this discussion, the writer often admonishes and exhorts these Christians not to turn back to the old ways, but to stay with the way of Christ. It is in the midst of one of these exhortations that we find chapter 10 verse 25. Many Jewish Christians were leaving the faith and were thus forsaking the assembly of the saints. The writer exhorts them not to do this, but to continue to go to the assembly. Such a willful disregard for the faithfulness of other Christians is a willful sin and will be judged accordingly. A Christian ought not to fall into that way of life lest God’s wrath be executed against him.

There are some who say that the “day” that is approaching is referring to the day of judgment that God was going to visit upon the city of Jerusalem. While this passage may include that day of judgment it is not so specific as to exclude all days of judgment that God will execute upon the unfaithful. Jesus spoke of this day of judgment specifically in Matthew 24:1-34. But notice that he also spoke of the final day of the world as well which would occur at a later time period that has not been revealed (Matthew 24:36-51). Both days are days of judgment. The early Jewish Christian would be warned by the apostles and prophets to live so as to be ready for that first day of judgment which would come upon the Jewish nation in the form of the Roman General Titus. The Christian today is warned by the apostles and prophets to live so as to be ready for that final day of judgment which will come upon all nations. God’s principles of judgment are true whether revealed in an earthy judgment or in a heavenly one. So to answer the question, the day is “the day of judgment.” As it applies to us today, there is only one day of judgment which God has revealed to us for which we need to prepare. Peter says that this is the day when “the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” 2 Peter 3:11-14 qualify as good commentary on Hebrews 10:25 and following. Peter writes, “Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.”

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on What is the “Day” of Hebrews 10:25

If Someone who Lives in Africa Doesn’t Know About God or His Word and He Does Will the Man Go to Hell?

If someone who lives in Africa doesn’t know about God or his word and he dies will the man go to hell?

The question that many people often ask is how could God be so unjust as to send someone who has never heard His word to hell? We are very quick to point the finger at God and say that it is God who is responsible for sending someone to hell when such is not true at all. If any one person ends up in the place of eternal punishment known as hell, it will be because of the choice that they have made to go there. One might ask, how do we choose to spend eternity in hell? The answer is we choose to go to hell when we sin against God. Isaiah 59:2 says that our sins and our iniquities separate us from God. 1 John 1:8 and 10 say that if we say we have no sin we make God a liar and the truth is not in us. Indeed we must agree with the conclusion at which Paul arrived in Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As a result of our sin we will receive exactly what we are owed, eternal death and separation from God (Romans 6:23). Eternal separation from God and the place called hell are situations in which we will be if we sin against God. This is not because of God’s choice, it is because of our choice and we must always recognize that this is the case first and foremost.

Now, to follow the line of reasoning further, a person might ask, “Well, how can God hold someone accountable for their sin when they don’t know they are sinning?” This question is a more reasonable question to ask, but it assumes something that the Bible teaches is just plainly false–the idea that a person can sin without knowing it is sin. The Bible teaches that God has inherently equipped man with several things to aid in man’s journey to be faithful to God. One of the things that God has done is made man in His image. In Genesis 1:27 we read, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” All men are created in the image of God. Now while I don’t know what all this entails, it involves a few things about man that we can understand to aid man in doing what is right. First, all men have the capacity to love and all men have the capacity to hate. Which one of those is right and which one is wrong? I believe that God has endowed us with the ability to understand which one is right and which one is wrong merely from being His human creation. There are other things that we can know are right and are wrong as well. Second, God has created us with a conscience. This is the ability that a person has to understand that one has done something that is either right or wrong. If one thinks about the fact that one has a conscience, one will come to the conclusion that something must be done about one’s sin in one’s life. Our conscience will also indicate to us when we have sinned. Third, man naturally seeks to do certain evil things in private or without the knowledge of someone who is in authority over us. When you committed your first sin that you can remember, was it in the presence of your parents? Was it committed in the presence of your preacher or teachers? Or was it committed someone in a dark place among the companions of fellow sinners? When man sins, he tends to want to cover it up so that persons in authority will not know about it. This is universal. I am sure that there are more things that could be brought out, but these should be sufficient enough for a person to come to the conclusion that God does not want him to sin and that so doing is a violation of God’s will.

Moreover, the Bible teaches that God has created us in such a way so as to seek Him. We read in Acts 17:26 and 27 that God, “�hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.” God has made man in such a way so as to seek Him. He has also made it relatively simple for man to find Him. Paul declares in Romans 1:18-20, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” There are a few things in this passage that bear upon this subject. First, we see the statement, “that which may be known of God is manifest in them.” That is exactly what we were discussing earlier. There are some things that can be known of God that are shown within the creation of man himself. Second, we see the statement that “the invisible things of him are clearly seen.” He has also made the creation in such a way so as to give honor and glory to Him as God. Here is another avenue in which a man can reason correctly about the creation and come to the conclusion regarding God. We then read that due to these things that God has given man, God can hold man without excuse in the Day of Judgment.

So, there is no reason why any man upon the face of the earth should fail to come to knowledge about God. God can hold man accountable for his sin because God has made man in such a way so as to know that 1) God exists, 2) Man can understand that he has sinned against God and, 3) Man can seek and find God. Suppose I offered those three pieces of information in a court of law to a judge or jury. Your honor, this man who is accused of this crime knew that he committed this crime, knew that he was going to be held accountable for this crime, and knew that he was supposed to live in such a way so as not to commit this crime. What judge or jury in the world would not convict him of the crime?

Now, to be fair, there are some who exist upon the face of the earth today who do not have this capacity. They do not understand the difference between right and wrong. They do not understand what it means to be accountable for their actions. They do not understand that God will hold them in judgment one day and I know of no faithful gospel preacher alive who would argue that these would be sent to hell. In fact, just the opposite is the case for those who do not understand these things. God will spare their soul and take them to heaven. Who are these individuals? They are infants and children who have not matured to the appropriate age to understand what is right and wrong and they are individuals who through physical or mental defect cannot properly make decisions in their life. These God will tenderly keep in His care, but the man from Africa, who has all of his faculties about him, will undoubtedly stand before God in judgment.

Finally, what is the real problem with these types of situations? The problem is that although man knows what is right and wrong, he deceives himself into thinking that wrong things are not wrong.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:19-25).

Notice that Paul says that it took an active decision on these individuals parts to reject God and to NOT have him in their knowledge. An individual who worships animals should recognize that those things are merely inferior creations to the One who created them and while there are some things that I have not seen, I have never seen a group of people who exist in a society with no gods whatsoever. This means that they have had to reason that some god exists and that therefore, they should understand that God exists. Once a person understands that God exists, then they should go about the business of trying to find God’s word. And God’s word is not far from any one of us.

So to repeat the question, “If someone who lives in Africa doesn’t know about God or his word and he dies, will the man go to hell?” According to the Bible, this question cannot be true of anyone except infants, children, and folks who have mental defects. The Bible teaches that it is not possible for one single individual who lives on the earth to not know certain things about God and for these things, God will bring every man into judgment.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on If Someone who Lives in Africa Doesn’t Know About God or His Word and He Does Will the Man Go to Hell?

Is there a Contradiction between I Corinthians 11:24 and John 19:36?

In 1 Corinthians 11:24, some translations read “This is my body which is broken for you.” Is this a correct translation because in John 19:36 we read “that not a bone of Him shall be broken.”? Also what Old Testament scripture was referred to in John 19:36.

There are two questions here, so let me deal with them separately. First let’s deal with the last question. What Old Testament scripture was referred to in John 19:36? There are several that come to mind. One of the requirements of the Passover was that the suppliants were not to break a bone of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12). A broken bone indicated an offering that was less than complete or perfect and the Israelites were to consider the entire meal of the Paschal lamb an offering to Jehovah. In Psalm 22:17 in the midst of a clear prophecy regarding the suffering Savior, it is said that he can count all of his bones. Another context in which this statement is made is in Psalm 34:20. While the Psalmist is describing the blessed state of the righteous, he describes the righteous one as one whose bones are not broken. This prophecy applies to the Christ as He is ultimately the fulfillment of all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). The early apostles recognized Him as “The Righteous One” as well (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14) and all statements regarding the righteous within the Old Testament are fulfilled ultimately by and through Him. We also must remember that the Old Testament was revealed as a shadow of things to come. It should not surprise us that there are “hidden” prophecies regarding the Messiah that we would not recognize or that would even seem kind of unreasonable to us. God did not reveal His will under the Old Covenant in the same way that he clearly reveals His will under the New Covenant, so we can’t necessarily use the same standard of judging what appears reasonable or not as a fulfillment of prophecy. If God said it was a fulfillment, then that should be good enough for us, and he did say such.

As to the other question, 1 Corinthians 11:24 reads, “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” We should take note that this is the reading from the KJV. The ASV reads as follows, “and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.” The English Standard Version reads as follows, “and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” We should take note that only the KJV has the word “broken” in the text. This raises some interesting questions. First, was the word “broken” in the original manuscript. Second, if it was not, how did it get in there? Third, if it were, what would be its significance? These types of questions throw us into the middle of a discussion regarding the science of lower textual criticism. This area of study is the science that is used by scholars to determine which words were in the original manuscripts of the New Testament. As many of you know, we do not have the original autographs of the New Testament. So we must rely upon copies in order to have the Bible that we have. For the New Testament there are over 5000 copies of different sections of scripture that scholars have to study and compare. With the sheer number of copies made there are bound to be some errors. Some of the errors are merely transposition of letters or words, but other errors are more significant. This section of scripture happens to contain one of those types of errors. Now before I go on, let me state that I am not at this point saying what the error is. We know that because there is a difference in several of the manuscripts regarding this particular text, that there was an error. But we do not know at this point the nature of that error. We don’t know whether this word should be omitted or should be included. So we need to look at all of the available evidence to determine this one way or the other. How do we go about doing that?

Well, on the one hand, if we all knew Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Coptic, Syrian, and a dozen other languages AND if we had all studied the various different forms of the ancient manuscripts and how people wrote on them, we could dive into every single particular text, learn its age, research how ancient scholars regarded the accuracy of the text, and then try to come to a conclusion about the authority of each particular text and once we went through all 5000 or so of them, our work would be near completion. OR, on the other hand, we could let someone else do all of that for us and just see what they have said about it. I think we will do the later, but even that is a matter of some technical difficulty. In each Greek text, there is at the bottom of each page what is called the apparatus. The purpose of this part of the text is to tell us exactly what amount of authority one reading has over another. Sometimes we get a clear understanding of what the original should be and sometimes we do not. In the cases where we don’t get a clear understanding, scholars have developed some rules that indicate which reading is the best reading. There are differences, however, among the scholars as to what rules are the best. The prevailing methodology is to give the greatest authority of the text to the oldest manuscript. The assumption is that the older the manuscript is, the closer it is going to be to the original. And in this particular passage, the oldest manuscripts do not contain the word “broken.” This is why you will find the word left out of all of the new translations. The word is within the KJV because the KJV translators used a Greek version that is called the “received text” from which to translate their version into English. The “received text” does contain the word “broken” in this passage.

There is another way that we might use to help us understand whether this word was in the original autograph or not. We can compare this section of text with the rest of the Bible and see if it is consistent with other passages that might be similar or bear upon the meaning of this passage. The most similar passage to 1 Corinthians 11:24 is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus merely says, “Take eat, this is my body.” Luke’s account reads, “This is my body which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me.” So given that most of the oldest manuscripts leave the word “broken” out, and given that the other accounts of this event do not include that particular thought, and given that it does appear to be theologically inconsistent with other parts of the Bible, such as this passage in John 19:36, it is most likely the case that the word was added through a mistake or an incorrect memory early in the history of the transmission of the New Testament. However, there is the possibility that it could have been in the original language. Let’s assume that it was for a moment.

If this word “broken” was in the original language, to what is it referring? It is clear from other parts of scripture that Jesus bones were not broken. To what could this “breaking” refer? It could refer to the breaking of the external layers of the body of Jesus–that is, His skin–when His body was pierced with the crown of thorns, beaten with a flog, and then pierced with nails and finally when His side was pierced with the soldier’s spear. The Greek construction of the relative clause “which is broken for you” makes it impossible for this to refer back to the bread itself, though in English it is ambiguous.

The long and short of it is this. The weight of evidence indicates that the word was not in the original language, but even if it was, it can be understood in a way that would not mitigate against any other important Biblical teaching such as the fulfilling of prophecy in John 19:36. In essence, each variant reading doesn’t contain information that would cause a contradiction within the scripture. And this is also the case with the majority of variations in the original Greek text so that we can say with complete certainty that we have God’s complete word as given to us through the inspired hands of the apostles. We also have the promise of Jesus in Matthew 24:35 that His words would not pass away. So we can be assured in this way as well that we have God’s word.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Is there a Contradiction between I Corinthians 11:24 and John 19:36?