This last comment by Greg raises an interesting point as to something that has greatly concerned me. There is only the slightest difference for 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17 between the Textus Receptus of the sixteenth/seventeenth century on which the King James Version is based and texts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries now used in translation work, and it amounts to simply the omission of a comma in the later texts. The comma I refer to is between ‘hen soma’ and ‘hoi polloi’ in the TR but is absent in others. I doubt that the comma would have been present in the texts which JND used.
Its presence in the TR has meant that ‘the many’ are viewed as being ‘one loaf, and one body’ in the KJV or ‘one loaf, one body’ in the Darby Translation, and this has led to the doctrine that all believers, members of the one body, are represented and are to be seen in the “unbroken loaf” at the Lord’s supper.
The Revised Version footnote for the first part of 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17 renders it, ‘Seeing there is one bread, we, who are many, are one body’ (1 Cor.10.17a, RV footnote). Most recent versions translate the verse similarly. For example: ‘Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.’ (1 Cor. 10. 17 ESV.) ‘Since there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf.’ (NASB) As to the words ‘there is’ being supplied, see 1 Corinthians 8 verse 6 and the well-known Ephesians 4 verse 4, in italics in the KJV and square brackets in the Darby Translation.
I had always thought that the loaf at the Lord’s supper was the emblem of the Lord’s physical body given sacrificially on our behalf at the Cross. However, I am told that I must accept that others have a different view, this being that the loaf on the table represents the one body, being, I assume, the spiritual body of Christ. Translating the verse in the way that these more recent versions render 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17 removes the ambiguity.
Mark Best
On 1 Cor 10:17, both Darby (“Because we, [being] many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf”), and Kelly (“Because we, the many, are one loaf, one body, for we all partake of the one loaf”), are in agreement. On 1 Cor 11:24, both Darby (“and having given thanks broke [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me”), and Kelly (“and, having given thanks, he brake [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me”), are in agreement. I believe Kelly worked quite independent of Darby on his translation. No editing here!
Now on 1 Cor 10:17, the translations of these men agree with the KJV, beginning: “for we [being] many....” and then follows the “one loaf, one body.” Of 60 translations, 15 (including KJV, RV, ASV, Darby, Kelly) begin with the “many” whilst the rest (including the TR!) begin with the “one loaf.” The “many” are the people; the “one loaf” the symbol. Even if the loaf is not there, all the believers (the many) always constitute the one body. All believers on earth cannot be together, but the partaking of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates that unity practically. So here, can there be any doubt that the one loaf on the table represents the one body? It's about communion and partaking.
However Mark, you are not wrong, I believe. In 1 Cor 11:24 the loaf is an emblem of the Lord’s physical body broken for us. Why some have an issue with “broken” (Gr. klao) in 1 Cor 11:24 (KJV) is beyond me. They say it’s not in the “original,” meaning by that, the Codex Sinaiticus, and so the RV and all modern versions. But the TR has the word, klao. There is no contradiction with “this is my body” (Mark 14:22) or “this is my body given” (Luke 22:19), or “this is my body, which is broken for you” (1 Cor 11:24) (my italics). And, it doesn’t contradict the fact that not one of Christ’s bones were broken. It’s the Lord’s body spoken of, not the body of Christ (which is the church). And it's about showing His death.
Both Darby and Kelly omit “broken.” Kelly writes in his notes on his NT version—“The Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinaitic, and Palimpsest of Paris, with other authorities, have not κλωμενον ‘broken’ as in most followed by Tex. Rec.” They both followed the critical text. The exact quotation from Scripture of “this is my body which is broken for you” is found, for example, in the Peshitta and in the writings of the church fathers going back to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. What Scriptures did they use?
There seem to be some assumptions being made which are causing confusion. (Perhaps this 'Charles Pridham' page is not the best place for these discussions but anyway...)
Chapter 10 of 1 Cor. is not about the occasion of the Lord's Supper (or breaking of bread meeting) but about fellowship, Christian profession, and the consequent responsibilities. The assembly does not 'come together' until chapter 11, verses 18 and 20. In chapter 10 the Supper is referred to only in abstract, the emblems being referred to but not in the order of which they are partaken in the Supper itself.
Verse 17 reads 'We being many are one bread'. Note the order. It does not read 'the one bread is (a symbol of) us'. 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) is not the same as 'love is God' ! In chapter 10 the apostle is teaching (by way of illustration) that, though many, we are one. Just as a loaf is made up of many grains of flour, so the body is one, even though there are many individuals and gatherings there is only one body, not many bodies. A testimony (or at least a profession) to this truth is made by every Christian partaking of the emblems.
The illustration is brought in here (chapter 10) because of the necessity of having a consistent profession. In chapter 10 there are only 3 companies–Jew, gentile (idolator), and Church of God and one can only be associated with one of these. This is true in reality, "what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14) but also our testimony, profession, and associations ought to consistent with that truth—hence the whole tenor of chapter 10.
In chapter 11, and on every occasion of the Lord's Supper, the loaf is a symbol of the Lord's (physical) body—and the cup a symbol of his blood—and nothing else. The fact that we partake of these emblems (whenever and wherever this might be) is an expression (or 'showing forth') of our oneness with every other believer whose salvation has its basis in the death of the Lord. It is the normal, common act of every Christian (everywhere)—and not only true of those in any one gathering who partake of the same loaf (emblem) at any one time. I don't think there was ever a time when all Christians partook of the same loaf. The first breaking of bread on the Lord's Day after Pentecost would have had about 3120 present (Acts 2:41) so it is unlikely, to say the least, that they were all gathered in the same place.
It has already been commented that the matter I have now raised in connection with the Darby Translation is getting away from the person of Charles Pridham, but I might add a point that JND did not altogether depart from the KJV, and I suggest that while dropping the added ‘and’ in the first part of 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17 and the changing of the noun ‘partakers’ in the latter part to the more correct verb ‘partake’, he still neverthless kept the word ‘that’ for which there is no equivalent in the Greek.
If biblehub.org is consulted as to 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17, it will be seen that, apart from the NKJV, translators now render the verse in a similar way to the footnote in the RV, though admittedly, the KJV follows earlier translations. Even so, if the ‘many’ being ‘one loaf, one body’ is the correct rendering of the verse, it must be understood as being used metaphorically by Paul of Christian believers as corresponding in their oneness with the one loaf of which they partake, and they do not partake of that which would be emblem of themselves. Indeed, the verb translated as ‘partake’ is ‘metecho’, and as JND says, “And refers always to something outside myself.” See the Darby Translation page 1448, footnote q.
I am aware that the earliest uncial Greek MSS have no punctuation marks and that it is up to the editors to add them wherever they deem fit. Indeed, in such MSS there are no spaces between words and words too long to fit on the same line are continued on the next. However, spaces and punctuation marks were being added in the later cursives.
The point I was making is that a doctrine is being derived even from the Darby Translation which could make the loaf on the table represent the one body. Indeed, some years ago it was said at a conference that the expression ‘the body of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 10 verse 16 was to be understood, not as the physical body of Christ, but rather, His spiritual body. This is an error most serious.
Interestingly, the Latin Vulgate for the second part of verse 16 has, ‘et panis quem frangimus nonne participatio corporis Domini est’, translated by John Wycliffe as ‘And whether the bread which we break, is it not the part taking of body of the Lord?’ Even Mr Darby said that it is the body of the Lord: ‘As to “communion of the body of Christ,” in verse 16 it is the body of the Lord …’ (Letters of J. N. D., Volume 2, page 301, Stow Hill edition.)
But so much for that. Sorry for the interruption. I leave it there.
Mark Best
To cut a long story short: In verse 16 (of 1Cor 10) the word “body” refers to the real body of the Lord.
But in verse 17 the word “body” refers to the “mystical” Body of Christ = the church, formed in Acts 2.
W. J. Lowe put it thus: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Does that refers to the mystical Christ, as if the ‘blood’ were the blood of the church, or as if ‘the body’ here implied the church? No true believer could entertain the thought for an instant. Are we not shut up to the thought that the body of Christ ‘given for us’ is His own personal (not mystical) body? whereas the act which testifies practically to the unity of the mystical body (‘the church,’ Eph. 1,21), is that performed by each one gathered, in partaking of an already broken loaf. This reason is stated in verse 17, ‘For we are all partakers of that one bread.’ “
Martin Arhelger
Mark Best wrote: “The point I was making is that a doctrine is being derived even from the Darby Translation which would make the loaf on the table represent the one body.”
I do not see what is wrong with the view that the one loaf on the table is a symbol of the one (spiritual) body of Christ. It has been denied sometimes (for example in “The Bible Herald” 1879, page 140, or in “Scripture Truth” 1941, page 126).
But most affirm this. Some examples:
- “If the bread broken represents, on the one hand, the broken body of Christ, the unity of the bread represents, on the other, the unity of His spiritual body.” (JND, Coll. Writ 7: 112)
- “in the sign of the Lord's Supper we have, not two loaves, but one bread or one loaf symbolising one body.” (WK in Bible Treasury 1886:81)
- “The "one loaf," laid on the table, symbolizes the unity of the church.” (CHM in “Things New and Old” 1875: 213.)
- “Unquestionably, 1 Corinthians 10:17 teaches that one unbroken loaf should be laid on the Lord's table. It is beautifully expressive of the unity of the body.” (CHM in Things New and Old 1873: 307)
- “in the unbroken loaf we have a symbol of the mystical body of Christ, which includes every true believer, and, in partaking of the ’one bread’, we set forth our identification with the one body of which Christ is the Head and all believers members. The ‘one bread’ does not only set forth that those who at any given time partake of the bread are one, nor that believers in any particular locality are one, but it sets forth the unity of the whole body which includes every true believer.” (H. Smith, in: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, on chapter 10)
- “at the Lord's table the undivided loaf is a symbol of the spiritual unity of all those who, belonging to Christ, are ‘members of His body.’ It is well, therefore, when you break bread not to forget that the whole loaf is an emblem of the church of God, the body of Christ.” (W. J. Hocking, in: The Bible Monthly 1941: 18)
- “the loaf is a figure of the church of God on earth; there is unity set out in the loaf. As the unbroken loaf is one, so we are one.” (W. J. Hocking, in: Words of Help 1931: 126)
- “the Lord always contemplated ‘one body,’ ‘one assembly.’ And this should be expressed in the one unbroken loaf set upon the table, afterwards broken and divided among the gathered saints.” (C. J. Davis, in: Aids to Believers)
- “What a striking symbol is the one UNBROKEN loaf, as pointing out the oneness of the members of the united body of Christ! In some places of worship, instead of placing a loaf on the table to express the unity of the body, they place the loaf already cut up into little bits, thus shewing the disunion of the Church.” (E. Crowley, in: Death and Life – Union and Glory, 1864, p. 30)
- “The unbroken loaf represents Christ and His Body in union together. This is our corporate position, which we express by partaking of the one loaf. (1 Cor. 10:18)” (A. P. Cecil, in: A Short Summary of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 26)
- “the unbroken loaf being the figure of the one body, which is the ground of our gathering in the name of Christ; Christ being the One in whom we are;” (Helps by the Way 1880: 307, probably by F. W. Grant)
Martin Arhelger
I did not really intend commenting on this subject, but had done so in relation to Greg's comment regarding Mr Pridham's contribution to the Darby Translation.
But to respond to Martin Arhelger. He has quoted me: “The point I was making is that a doctrine is being derived even from the Darby Translation which could make the loaf on the table represent the one body.” Please notice the word "even" and that I did not write of “one loaf.” Read carefully what I did say. I did not use the number “one” in relation to the loaf on the table.
The loaf itself is the emblem of the Lord’s physical body (as Martin rightly says), but that it is one loaf is not stated in 1 Corinthians 10 verse 16. That it is one loaf, though broken, of which we partake (verse 17), by that act is the expression of our unity, the spiritual body of Christ, the unity which embraces all the members of the one body, the unity we are all in.
Now, let us carefully read what Mr W J Lowe wrote: “The act which testifies practically to the unity of the mystical body (‘the church,’ Eph. 1,21), is that performed by each one gathered, in partaking of an already broken loaf. The reason is stated in verse 17, ‘For we are all partakers of that one bread.’ ” This is, I suggest, entirely in accordance with 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17.
Let some relevant citations be extracted from the writings of Mr Darby.
As to “communion of the body of Christ,” in verse 16 it is the body of the Lord … (Letters of J. N. D., Volume 2, page 301, Stow Hill edition, the bold mine – MB.)
There is no such thing in scripture as partaking of an unbroken loaf. The unity is referred to our partaking of one loaf, not to its being unbroken – which it certainly was not when Christ gave it to His disciples to eat… We show forth the Lord’s death in it, though as all partaking of one loaf (not breaking it which would be absurd) we are all one body… It is an entire departure from the original institution, which shows forth the Lord’s death till He come; though the unity of the body is betokened to us, in partaking of one loaf. But the body is the body of Christ in the ordinance, as expressly said. (1 Cor. 10.16.) (Letters of JND, volume 3, pages 456-457, the italics JND, the bold again mine – MB.)
I am aware that Mr Darby’s letter concerned the notion of partaking of an unbroken loaf to express the unity of the church, which was being suggested by some, an idea he rejected, but it is a letter in which Mr Darby nevertheless stated quite clearly that “the unity is referred to our partaking of one loaf.”
Notice that it is the act of partaking which expresses the unity: "The unity is referred to our partaking of one loaf, not to its being unbroken."
Again, from Mr Darby, as alluded to, but more fully:
The presence of the Holy Spirit produces the consciousness of this unity, of which He is the author and the bond. Now, considered in one aspect, the Lord’s Supper is the expression of this unity. We are all but “one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (or, as in the original, “of that one loaf”). If the bread broken represents, on the one hand, the broken body of Christ, the unity of the bread represents, on the other, the unity of His spiritual body. As the Spirit embraces all saints, so do the hearts of believers. (The Collected Writings of J N Darby, volume 7, pages 112-113. The bold – MB.)
Is there any mention of an “unbroken loaf” in this from JND? In fact, we do not read in 1 Corinthians 10 verses 16 and 17 that the loaf “in its unbroken condition” represents the one body or the church’s unity. Nor are we instructed in these verses to see all believers, all the members of the one body, in the unbroken loaf or represented in it.
I respond to this extract: "If the bread broken represents, on the one hand, the broken body of Christ, the unity of the bread represents, on the other, the unity of His spiritual body." Mr Darby does not use the expression “unbroken loaf” anywhere in these two sentences. We partake of one loaf but the one loaf when broken. The notion seems to be going around that the unity of the loaf only refers to the unbroken loaf, the loaf before being broken, and that only when the loaf is in its unbroken state does represent the unity of the church. It seems to be an insurmountable problem for not a few to understand that when the one loaf is broken it is still one loaf, but now the one loaf broken. Breaking the one loaf does not turn it into many loaves. It is simply the one loaf broken. And it is that of which we partake. What is so difficult about this?
Some more extracts from Mr Darby’s letters are also helpful.
He sends down the Holy Ghost and forms the church… Of this unity the Lord’s supper is the sign… We are all one body, “for we all partakers of that one loaf.” […] we are one body inasmuch as we partake. (J N Darby, Letters, Volume 2, page 277, the bold mine – MB)
“For by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body.” […] The ordinance that symbolises this is the Lord’s supper … for we are all one body, inasmuch as “we are all partakers of that one loaf.” (Ibid, page 287 the bold again mine – MB.)
That which makes us members of the body of Christ is the baptism of the Holy Ghost: we are, through one Spirit, all baptised into one body. Of the body, the Lord’s supper is the symbol, and the participation of it the outward confession of unity: for as it is one bread, so we, being many, are one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread (loaf). (Ibid, page 290, the bold MB.)
There are two quite distinct truths or objects of thought brought before us in the Lord’s supper: the death of the blessed Lord, and His remembrance now that He has gone: and the unity of the body as partaking of one loaf. (J N Darby, Letters, Volume 3, 446, the bold MB.)
The Lord’s supper is the external sign of this unity: “one body for we are all partakers of that one loaf.” (Ibid, page 49. Again, the bold mine – MB.)
Notice the abundant evidence that the unity of the body is not seen in the unbroken loaf, but rather, in our partaking of the one loaf. It can be traced back, therefore, to JND. But why all the citations from "brethren" rather than accepting what the Bible says? If it be that 'Because we, being many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of that one loaf', as 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17 appears in the Darby translation, the "one loaf" here is not the loaf on the table, but used metaphorically of the many who partake - 'we all' according to the second part of the verse. It is what 'we many' are: 'one loaf, and one body' (1 Cor 10.17 KJV).
I did not want to continue with this topic since the subject has now moved away from comments relating to Charles Pridham, but to simply to draw attention to an alternative rendering of 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17, an example of one allowable by a slight variation of punctuation in Greek texts.
Interestingly, found in one of Mr Darby's letters is, "For as it is one bread, so we, being many, are one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread (loaf)." (J N Darby, Letters, Volume 2, page 290.) This is how most versions now translate 1 Corinthians 10 verse 17.
All I do say is that one loaf is placed on the table because the church is one, there is but the one body, in contrast to the twelve loaves of presence on the pure table by reason of twelve tribes of Israel, but the loaf itself is the emblem of the body of the Lord, the physical body of Christ. And of that one loaf when broken we partake. Our oneness, not only as one body, but also as one body have our part in that which our Lord Jesus Christ accomplished for us, e.g., when He bore our sins in His body on the tree.
But more than enough from me. I let others judge. And again, though I admit to quoting JND, why all the extracts from "brethren" when in the end it is 'what saith the Scriptures?'
(Sorry, Tom, for taking up so much space, but the significance of the loaf, since being the emblem of the Lord's body, is not one on which we can simply agree to differ.)
Mark Best
