Bread for the Lord's Supper

[dr_parsley]

I would say that insisting on the "unleavened" part, anyplace, is going beyond the plain teaching of Scripture. I can't say that I think Jesus had unleavened bread in mind for his church, perpetually, on the night when he instituted the LS.
...
I do think that Jesus had "red wine" in mind for his church, perpetually.

I think "red" is demonstrative of the shed blood of Jesus, which it represents, so I wouldn't want "white wine."

And unleavened bread is demonstrative of his sinlessness. It seems to me there should be a difficulty in holding that the redness of the wine was a symbol intended by Jesus and the unleavenness of the bread was not. On what grounds can you do that? Either both are essential (if possible in ones context) or neither are.

My own preferred practice is actually the same as yours but my reasons are less principled - I like red wine and I don't like unleavened bread! I was recently interested to read Celsus' "On The True Doctrine" and the descriptions of the early Christians "love feasts" shows a quite different character to the discussion on this thread and I wonder if we've got it right at all on a more fundamental level to that of unleavened/leavened and red/white/juice.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paul, (in sort of reverse order)
1) Celsus might be interesting, but he certainly wouldn't be "unbiased", and we'd at least have to read Origen to get the contrary view on those gatherings.

2) The "love feast" was not the Lord's Supper (in mine, and a number of other exegetes' view). Rather, it was a "fellowship meal".

3) Ordinarily I don't like red wine, so that certainly isn't a "preference" for the sake of liking. Preference for the sake of what I think is called for, yes.

4) My statement: red wine=visual for blood, brown bread =visual for body

You've related a physical symbol ("bloody" wine) and a spiritual symbol ("sinless" flesh). At the very least, you need to make your comparison more parallel. "Unleavened" bread, which you insist on, should be paralleled with some sort of quality in the wine (fermentation, perhaps?--but isn't that a product of yeast? like leaven?).

Although I prefer the wine, I don't insist on it in order to obtain an adequate ("not substandard") Lord's Supper. So, I don't have this difficulty you think I might. And since I don't think I need unleavened bread to symbolize Christ's sinlessness in the Supper (is that what "unleavened" means?), not using it is not a problem for me either.

 

[Wannabee]

Incidently, the yeast in wine dies during the fermentation process. I don't know that this is signified in the LS at all. But it is an interesting observation.

It's a good observation that leaven is not necessarily associated with wickedness. In fact, the lack of leaven in the Passover is representative of Israel's hasty flight from Egypt when they did not have enough time to wait for it to rise (Ex 12:34, 39; 13:3). The wave offering, however, was mandated to contain leaven (Lev 23:17). "A little leaven leavens the whole lump" cuts both ways - leaven=kingdom of God (Matt 13:33), leaven=doctrine of Pharisees (Matt 16:12).

The unleavened Passover loaf is the "bread of affliction." This ties in closely with what Jesus represents. This seems consistent with what is taught in 1 Cor. 5:6-8.

We have here a sense of the old and the new. With all that the LS represents we must not leave out the fact that it represents the "throwing out" or "putting off" of the old man and the bringing in or "putting on" of the new. This, too, is represented in unleavened bread. This is necessarily lost in the symbolism if leavened bread is used. This is one reason why the 1 Cor 5 passage is relevant.

Perhaps it has happened that the LS has become somewhat trite in our culture. We simply identify the bread with the body of Christ, break it (in an almost Romish way?) and dole it out without really grasping the significance of what we're doing and the depth of what it represents. There is a very real past present and future orientation symbolized in the LS. Repentance is pictured. Of course the sacrifice to end all sacrifices is pictured. We have no priests to administer it for we are all priests and we have one great high Priest. Our old life is behind us and we have a new, unleavened, life to live. The wine shows both the horror of the shedding of the blood of Christ while at the same time represents the Lord's blessing and the celebration of all that is given us in Christ Jesus. The Gospel is preached in the observance of the LS. We celebrate not only His death, burial and resurrection, but our own as well. We celebrate His quickening of these dry bones in order that we would have life. We celebrate the day by day spiritual victory we can achieve only in Christ Jesus. We celebrate the unity of the church in Christ Jesus. We celebrate the wondrous bounty we have in feasting on Christ. And we get a slight glimpse of the glorious marriage supper of the Lamb, which is also part of the picture. This He promised at the institution of the LS.

For all of these reasons, and more, we use unleavened bread and real wine. Much of this I don't know if I could show as clearly symbolized if we used leavened bread. And may it be that our children will ask us why, and we'll ponder, and remember, and preach the Gospel again to both ourselves and our progeny. And perhaps we'll get more of it right because we haven't lost the symbolism in the observation. Perhaps, by the grace of God, we'll remember better because we sought this one thing. Again, I don't think it's necessarily mandated. But I do think it's a great opportunity lost if we don't grasp the depth and wonder inherent in the Lord's Supper remembrance.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Brian,
I appreciate your seriousness. If we can't agree on this, then OK. I hope if we ever take the LS together, it will be without any reservation.

Responses:
1) The original WCF 29:8 uses the 1Cor.5:6,7,13 (even deliberately skipping out v8 and "let us keep the feast") as a text for proving that unworthy persons may not "be admitted thereunto." So, they point to this chapter for defining a worthy Christian.

So, I have to disagree that the Divines were using this passage as a reference to the Supper. They used it to define holy Christians, which is what the passage is talking about. It isn't about a literal feast, so "keeping the feast" refers to OUR keeping PASSOVER, not transmuted to another meal.

2) Of course, I believe Christ used unleavened bread on the occasion of LS institution. But Passover is an EXPIRED service. It doesn't exist anymore. Christ is our Passover (Lamb). We don't purge leaven from our houses anymore. WE are supposed to be purged of Egypt's leaven, according to 1Cor.5:6, all the time, every day.

If we take "frequent" LS observance seriously, by insisting on unleavened bread I should think (if we carry this symbolism through to the fullest) then we should practically exclude leaven from our lives entirely. Israel was to keep it gone for a week or more from out their houses and all their coasts. Why are we only taking it out for an hour on Sunday?

So, I think "getting serious" about the Passover-symbol connections means a great deal more than insisting on unleavened bread in one meal. I think stopping there is too convenient. It has to be out of our homes too, 24/7 and 365... unless we should only take LS once a year?

3) To sum up my position: I think to insist on unleavened bread is again to go back under the law, in some sense. Feast of Unleavened Bread was powerfully Jewish. And the church has broken through those national limitations. Which, incidentally (and again, after something Jesus himself said), I see the expanding WINE as potentially helpfully symbolic of this fact. But that's an explicit New Testament symbol. So, I'm not against symbolism, but we have to be careful about imputing meanings to our devotion.

I distinguish following the old law from obeying the Lord's command and example. But the question is: how thorough a following of that example? We don't insist on going to an upper room. We don't all recline on one another, reclining around a U-shaped table. Etc.

But we do want the same elements. So, we take Jesus' simple words as definitive. We don't "read into them" the full circumstances of the Passover he was finishing and fulfilling that night and following day. He said "wine" and "bread." He spoke of ordinary things, and not special, not unique-to-this-event materials. Nothing in what he said makes me think that he was calling on the ends of the earth to make special breads now for the LS (having no other purpose).

That's how I see it.

 

[chbrooking]

I wish all discussions on the PB were carried out with such gentleness and respect.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Brian,
I appreciate your seriousness. If we can't agree on this, then OK. I hope if we ever take the LS together, it will be without any reservation.

Bruce,

I believe the correct method of observance is wine and unleavened bread. I've not had to deal with the LS outside a church that had similar observance since coming to that position, so I hope the same would be true, but I have not thought through that yet.

Just found out that I have to deal with it this Sunday. I'm really in a bind here now. Got to figure if I think it is just plain wrong (not in accord with the RPW) or indifference and got to do it before Sunday. (Ouch!)

 

[fredtgreco]

Brian,

You didn't look at the posts I linked to above. In no instance of a description of the Lord's Supper is the word for unleavened bread used. In actuallity, in every instance it is the Greek word for common loaf.

As I stated in the thread in the first link I gave above:

It is not conclusively clear from this that leavened bread is required, but it is a severe wresting of the text and Greek to require unleavened bread. It is more likely than not that it was leavened bread from the words of Scripture themselves. And after all, that is more important than any Jewish tradition or history.

Fred,

The word you point out is unleavened αζυμος is the word used in 1 Co 5:7, 8. You would have to argue that "For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast ..." is not talking about the LS, but passover? I would think that while it is not specified directly, that it would be strange not to think of the feast as anything but the LS. What other feast do we celebrate?

While I would never say that with no statement of change we should follow the OT requirements of ceremonial law (which was abrogated under the NT) but the requirement to celebrate the feast of the LS is not OT law. Therefore, I would argue that the feast instituted by Christ first would have been the passover (Mat 26:17-19) for that is what was prepared. And while you carefully point out that the word bread in v.26 is αρτος, the word is a more general term from what I can see ... it is the same word for bread in many places, including Mark 2:26 which would be unleavened, so the larger context I would think would dictate what it would be. Given that it was the feast of unleavened bread, and that it was prepared (the disciples went to prepare it) the preparation would have included removing all yeast and having unleavened bread for the passover meal. The context is in light of v.17 which does use αζυμος (which you point out is unleavened).

From the context, it would have been redundant to specify αζυμος yet again, for no one of the time would have thought the bread would be anything but unleavened. So the addition of the weight of 1 Co 5:6-8 (also uses αζυμος) in connection with "the feast" would seem to confirm a use of unleavened bread. If the original was unleavened, and 1 Co 5:7 confirms unleavened, I would think it incumbent upon those that wish to change the material in the LS to show why it should not be taken as substance but rather incidence.

So my premise is this

• The original was constituted at the passover (the feast of unleavened bread)
• The bread used would have assuredly been unleavened (Exo 12:15 ... there would be no leaven in the house)
• 1 Cor. 5:6-8 confirms the use of unleavened bread in the only NT feast (the LS)

I don't see a lot of wiggle room there. If this is in regard to worship, then it is not a matter open to Christian Liberty (anything beside the word is not within liberty) and the RPW would seem to insist the use of unleavened bread.

I do think you may be wrong in saying that αρτος is always leavened bread, for it is the the word used in Mark 2:26 (and the parallel passages). These speak of the consecrated bread which only the priest can lawfully eat (which was unleavened bread). Unless there is something else going on here (and there very well could be), that would mean it is unleavened in those cases (and the lexicons I have gives it a broader meaning than leavened bread).

As I've said, I can be instructed in these areas, but there seem to be holes in the argument which you gave before.

Brian,

I can't give this discussion the time it needs - other matters press (it seems they always do lately!), but I wanted to briefly reply since you stated in your last post that you had a practical consequence coming up on Sunday.

First, as a general (high level) matter, I believe it is not wise to try and find a great deal of correspondence in the physicality of the OT and NT sacraments. In most cases there is wide disparity: baptism does not involve blood, and the Lord's Supper does not involve what was the main element of the Passover (the lamb) and does involve an element not found in the Passover (the cup). This is not dispositive, but I think should give us pause before we insist that a certain element must be retained.

Second, I believe that you are making 1 Cor. 5:7-8 bear more weight than it can. As Bruce has pointed out, the divines appear to be going out of their way not to make the connection you would. The passage is about the benefits to the people of God after the sacrifice: in the former instance, the sustenance of the lamb, in the latter, the benefits of Christ's work (esp. His death). The use of the adjective unleavened ( [FONT=&quot]ἄζυμος[/FONT]) with (the implicit, not explicit word) bread in 1 Cor. 5:8 is directly linked to the use of the adjective unleavened to describe the Corinthians themselves in 1 Cor. 5:7. (See Calvin, Henry, et al. in loc.)

Third, there is no definitive exegetical evidence that the showbread itself was required to be unleavened. In every instance I could find, unleavened bread is matzah ( [FONT=&quot]מַצָּה[/FONT]) in the Hebrew. When describing the showbread, that word is not used. In fact, most often lechem ( [FONT=&quot]לֶחֶם[/FONT]), the ordinary word for bread/food is used. So I do not believe that you can make a case from Mark 2:26, which is the only case in which the ordinary Greek word for bread ( [FONT=&quot]ἄρτος[/FONT]) (which is attested throughout the Classical corpus, and never means unleavened bread, because it was unknown/unused by the Greeks) could possibly refer to "unleavened bread." In every other instance of the use of unleavened (Matt. 26:17; Mk. 14:1,12; Lk. 22:1,7; Acts 12:3; 20:6; 1 Co. 5:7) the Greek adjective ( [FONT=&quot]ἄζυμος[/FONT]) is used as a substantive without even the word for bread appearing.

Fourth, arguments from morality - "leaven = bad, so the Lord's Supper could not possibly have leaven in it" ignore the equally possible (and equally inapplicable, I would argue) argument that leaven = the expansion of the Kingdom (Mt. 13:33).

Therefore, it seems an exegetical stretch to insist that in every instance where the Lord's Supper is described and the word "bread" is used, that the author deliberately avoided the perfectly clear (and historical OT/LXX word) for unleavened bread in favor of a word that in every other context of all of literature (other NT and Classical Greek) means either "food" (generically) or "loaf of bread." The only possible exception (as I have pointed out above) in all of extent literature, is the dubious/disputed reference in Mark 2:26. Even if we grant that the Last Supper was the Passover (which is not granted by all exegetes), there is no more reason to say that the same form of bread must be used, than to say that the same implements of circumcision used by Abraham must be used somehow in baptism. It appears far more reasonable to me that the word for "loaf of bread" was used to avoid this very question, that of foisting Jewish ceremonial distinctive on what was very soon to become an international (and Gentile dominated) Church.

Blessings,

 

[Brian Withnell]

Thanks Fred,

I will take a look at what you have posted very closely. And I really appreciate your time when things are pressing you (as well as me). I will look through and do the investigation ... generally, I take everything very seriously, and while it was not pressing, it didn't have quite as high a priority. Now that I have a known instance in which I must decide, I need to figure if there is a need, or if it is just a preference.

 

[Brian Withnell]

I wish all discussions on the PB were carried out with such gentleness and respect.

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, Coming down upon the beard, Even Aaron’s beard, Coming down upon the edge of his robes. It is like the dew of Hermon Coming down upon the mountains of Zion; For there the Lord commanded the blessing—life forever.

This is what I am here for ... this discussion is both respectful and not just gentle, but loving.

 

[fredtgreco]

I wish all discussions on the PB were carried out with such gentleness and respect.

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, Coming down upon the beard, Even Aaron’s beard, Coming down upon the edge of his robes. It is like the dew of Hermon Coming down upon the mountains of Zion; For there the Lord commanded the blessing—life forever.

This is what I am here for ... this discussion is both respectful and not just gentle, but loving.

The same for me.

God's blessings on you, Brian!

 

[Brian Withnell]

As a post script, I thought I'd let y'all know what I have decided.

First, I still think unleavened bread is the appropriate substance ... while I can see how someone would come to the conclusion that it is not important, I just would not want to be in the position of serving the LS (making the decision of what to serve) and not doing what I think is the appropriate thing to do. But, I am not the one making that decision.

What is required of me is to discern the body and blood of the Lord. One of the things in discerning the body of the Lord is that understanding that we commune not alone, but as a body ... we (purposely plural) are the body of Christ on Earth (Eph 4, 1 Cor 12) and we partake of a communal mean, not just between individual self and Christ, but we partake of a communal meal together as a body and with Christ. So while I may think that the session may be taking liberties they ought not take in serving anything other than an unleavened loaf to the congregation, that responsibility is not mine (brothers, it is your responsibility and I do hope you are correct and I am wrong in that I know you will incur a stricter judgment than I). My responsibility is to rejoice with the body in the grace offered. So while I am with a congregation that does not use unleavened bread (or even one that does not use wine, which I am sure is the only appropriate liquid for the LS) I will discern the body and blood of the Lord regardless. The unity of the body and the peace of the church are my responsibility. If I visit a different congregation, I will without reservation partake of what is offered.

Forgive me if I am overly concerned for my brothers who are elders and I pray much for this to be either more clear to me as a matter of indifference, or that my brothers would be open to what I believe is the correct substance.

Bruce, Fred, I do thank you both for your input, and while I am not fully convinced, I do see how you could reach the conclusion to which you have arrived. Perhaps when you have even more time (or when I can find more time to study) we can sit around and dig through things to a greater depth.

 

[Peairtach]

Leaven doesn't signify sin in Scripture but expansion of good or evil from a small amount/source/remnant. The leaven can be good or bad. In the case of the Passover we are talking about the leaven of Egypt and its absence in the Pesach symbolised the fact that the sin(s) of Egypt were to be left behind, lest it would expand among the people from a little that had been taken with them.

In the Parable of the Leaven in three measures of meal we are talking about the good leaven of Kingdom expanding from small beginnings through the world.

The symbolism of the leaven of Egypt has been left behind with the end of the Passover. Good, nourishing and filling bread should be used where possible, to symbolise how good, nourishing and filling feeding on Christ's body is to the Christian. Crackers are not ideal for representing Christ's body.

A soft loaf should have its crust removed. Cut horizontally and vertically about an inch down in crosshatching on the top of the loaf. This means that the communicant can himself/herself break off a reasonably sized morsel, and have a slightly longer time to contemplate Christ's body with the morsel in his/her mouth and undigested.

Tiny precut squares of bread should be avoided.

The minister should initially brake some of the one loaf and pass it to the elders or members as Christ did. It is not necessary that the wine be poured out also before the congregation, although this can do no harm, as long as it is not insisted upon biblically.

Wine should be used by all, apart from any that have a problem with wine or alcohol.

 

[Pergamum]

So,

Is it decided that it is okay for missionaries to use a common "loaf" of sago or taro root (the closest equivalenceof bread available) and fruit mix drink to administer the supper in the lack of other elements? It is "unleavened" after all.

 

[KMK]

So,

Is it decided that it is okay for missionaries to use a common "loaf" of sago or taro root (the closest equivalenceof bread available) and fruit mix drink to administer the supper in the lack of other elements? It is "unleavened" after all.

A discussion board does not make decisions. It only makes decisions harder.

 

[Brian Withnell]

So,

Is it decided that it is okay for missionaries to use a common "loaf" of sago or taro root (the closest equivalenceof bread available) and fruit mix drink to administer the supper in the lack of other elements? It is "unleavened" after all.

Pergy,

If you are the "elder" in charge, then you have to make that decision. If you work under the authority of a board of missions, then I would get their input. If you have to operate as a totally independent entity (I would feel for you if that is the case) then you have to make all your own decisions (which I would find absolutely scary -- I make too many mistakes for me to want that kind of responsibility when I am dealing with spiritual lives). I appreciate what Ken stated. This board cannot decide things, but only help you to make decisions.

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 09:56:44 EST-----

P.S. If you wanted my opinion, the "bread" could be any unleavened bread, and the wine could be any fermented wine of any fruit (and hopefully the closest analogy to grape wine available).