# Bread for the Lord's Supper



## manito2000 (Aug 3, 2009)

Hi everyone...

Maybe it's because I did not search for the right terms...but couldn't find a post that specifically addreses by bread for the Lord's Supper question...

But...do you think that the Bible specifically prescribes that we use a certain type of bread (unleavened vs. leavened) for the Lord's supper? 

I'd like to use a real loaf of bread rather than those chilclets thingy's from the bookstore.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2009)

It doesn't matter what bread you use.

Use whatever simple staple is the most common stuff around. The point of the meal is that it is the most uncommon fare to which God chooses to attach his glory. It is the "foolishness" of plain bread that proclaims Christ's broken body.


----------



## Jon Peters (Aug 3, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It doesn't matter what bread you use.
> 
> Use whatever simple staple is the most common stuff around. The point of the meal is that it is the most uncommon fare to which God chooses to attach his glory. It is the "foolishness" of plain bread that proclaims Christ's broken body.



Then does it matter what we use to represent Christ's blood?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 3, 2009)

Can we use saltines and grape soda then?


----------



## William Price (Aug 3, 2009)

If anyone is interested, I have a recipe for unleavened bread that they are more than welcome to use. Got it while I was in my Apostolic New Covenant Messianic Judaism of Jesus Messiah days...

(Please, just don't ask about the Apostolic New Covenant Messianic Judaism of Jesus Messiah)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2009)

manito2000 said:


> Hi everyone...
> 
> Maybe it's because I did not search for the right terms...but couldn't find a post that specifically addreses by bread for the Lord's Supper question...
> 
> ...


Personally, I think using wine is best (Lk.5:33-39). This is what Jesus said use.{If you say he also indicated the use of unleavened bread, because the LS was instituted on Passover, I can only point out that he did not explicitly say so, nor is there any other indication that he meant the OT stipulations to be carried over into the NT rite.}​But I will accept any fruit of the vine, if that is what the session determines. And, in fact, at our church we only use grapejuice.

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


----------



## Berean (Aug 3, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Can we use saltines and grape soda then?



If you want heartburn


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Can we use saltines and grape soda then?



Is that the best approximation of Jesus' intent that you can achieve, in your immediate circumstances?


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 3, 2009)

If you are interested, I have about four recipes that appeared in our denomination magazine a few years ago. I would be glad to post them if you want.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2009)

The common loaf is appropriate:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/leavened-unleavened-9334/#post124010

http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/leavened-unleavened-9334/#post124054

What Kind of Elements Should We Use?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/wine-grape-juice-18482/#post231305


----------



## Rogerant (Aug 3, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> manito2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everyone...
> ...



Our Lord did not consecrate white wine. White wine does not represent the symbol of Christs shed blood. Red wine does. Nor does white wine or grape juice represent the cup of God's wrath and judgment that Jesus drank at the cross. And if we wanted to establish the sacraments based upon what is significant or relevant to our felt needs, perhaps we should as R.C. Sproul teaches, suggest peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and coca-cola.

But, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and coca cola do not symbolize the broken body of our Lord on the cross. Unleavened bread and red wine however do symbolize or signify our Lord's broken body and His shed blood. 

We serve Yehuda Matzos unleavened bread at the Lords supper. There is a very important lesson to be taught to the children as per Exodus 12:26 with unleavened bread. It is to provoke the question "What do you mean by this service?" The reason we serve unleavened bread is that we accept only the bread or "Word" that is served to us by God. We are not to "add" anything to it. When we "add yeast" to God's ordinances or statutes or laws, we are adding leaven to God's "bread" and this = adding to God's Word, Law statutes or ordinances. Therefore, when we say that we think it better to serve grape juice, because of man's weakness to drunkenness, this comes from mans reason, or thinking "according to the flesh" rather than "according to the Spirit". The fact that many churches change God's ordinance from red wine to white wine or grape juice "IS LEAVEN". It is "ADDING" yeast or leaven "mans reason" in addition to the bread or "WORD" of God. Matzos bread is unleavened and is baked upon a grill. It has burnt stripes on the bread. These stripes represent the stripes that Christ received when he was flogged before his crucifixion. "By His stripes we are healed" Isaiah 53:5. Also, at passover, Christ "broke bread". This represented His broken body on the cross. You can't break "Wonder Bread". Tearing Wonder Bread or enriched white leavened bread does not symbolize the breaking of Christ's body.

The symbols themselves do not infuse grace. But they "symbolize" very important lessons to our children. The symbol of unleavened bread symbolizes that we are not to "ADD" to God's ordinances, statutes or laws. Changing these ordinances due to our own reason, weaknesses or fears is "LEAVEN". THEREFORE, we should not be adding, changing or modifying these ordinances unless we think that we know how to teach our children better than God.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 3, 2009)

We use only unleavened bread. The unleavened bread has great significance. The bread represents the sinless body of Christ. 

I have several recipes that make good bread. Or, you can use Matzos if you want to buy it. They are not 'little chicklettes'.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 3, 2009)

Rogerant said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > manito2000 said:
> ...



Now while I think red is the better way, I can't let this one go. When did you get the special revelation that Jesus did not consecrate white wine?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2009)

In order to unlawfully "change" from unleavened bread for the LS, first one would need to show that unleavened bread per form is a NT directive, in exactly the same manner as it was under the OT.


----------



## Lady of the Lake (Aug 3, 2009)

I agree that the "chicklet thingies from the bookstore" are a bit difficult to warm up to. For a while our pastor made a loaf of bread that he broke in half in our presence. Tearing a small portion out of the shared loaf was a meaningful experience - even though it had yeast in it.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 3, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Can we use saltines and grape soda then?
> ...



On several occasions the best circumstances have been sago and power-ade powder mixed with water. 



But in the US the best circumstance is ALWAYS unleavened bread and red wine, right? In the US would you say there is any valid excuse for anything but a very very close approximation of the original?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 3, 2009)

Regardless of what is used - unleavened or leavened bread, or whatever - I think it is an important act of symbolism for the minister to show one loaf, break it, and for that loaf (now broken) to be disseminated to the people and for them to take their particular piece from that larger section.

Even while deployed, when I was forced to use MRE crackers, I was able to do this: (As some of you know) ONE cracker is actually 4 squares and so I just broke the cracker up and the people broke off subsequently smaller sections.

Why do I believe this is the most appropriate practice?

Why, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, of course:



> 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.


----------



## Edward (Aug 3, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Regardless of what is used - unleavened or leavened bread, or whatever - I think it is an important act of symbolism for the minister to show one loaf, break it, and for that loaf (now broken) to be disseminated to the people and for them to take their particular piece from that larger section.
> 
> Even while deployed, when I was forced to use MRE crackers, I was able to do this: (As some of you know) ONE cracker is actually 4 squares and so I just broke the cracker up and the people broke off subsequently smaller sections.
> 
> ...



You'd need a pretty big loaf at some of the churches in our denomination. How large was the unit that got the one MRE cracker?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



You're being facetious, right Pergs? Seriously, is any of this related to what I actually wrote?

The Israelites couldn't even keep the Passover outside Jerusalem. We should be able to keep the LS_* the best way we can*_ anyplace on earth. So, congratulations on your expediency. I'm sure you hope for closer approximations in the future.

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. That was the "table bread" that unique night of the year. But the LS is (ideally) for "frequent" observance.

I do think that Jesus had "red wine" in mind for his church, perpetually. But, to insist on it in circumstances where although it *IS* widely available, but over the (misguided, in my opinion) objections of others, when the unfermented grape-product is also on hand--this is being overscrupulous. It will harm the church MORE to fight that battle, than to pray and ask God to have his way peacefully. Preach and teach.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 3, 2009)

Edward said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what is used - unleavened or leavened bread, or whatever - I think it is an important act of symbolism for the minister to show one loaf, break it, and for that loaf (now broken) to be disseminated to the people and for them to take their particular piece from that larger section.
> ...




True... but sharing a common loaf (or loaves) is still feasible in the relative few large churches. 

I don't give communion to a unit. I give communion to Soldiers attending my services. The few times I had to use an MRE cracker I had 10-12 folks each time. So they had enough to eat a bite sized piece. (In contrast to that small portion, I'm reminded of a recent experience in which, when the loaf was passed to him, this guy ripped off a fist sized piece. Classy.)


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 3, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Personally, I think using wine is best (Lk.5:33-39). This is what Jesus said use.{If you say he also indicated the use of unleavened bread, because the LS was instituted on Passover, I can only point out that he did not explicitly say so, nor is there any other indication that he meant the OT stipulations to be carried over into the NT rite.}​But I will accept any fruit of the vine, if that is what the session determines. And, in fact, at our church we only use grapejuice.
> 
> I think "red" is demonstrative of the shed blood of Jesus, which it represents, so I wouldn't want "white wine."



I normally agree with what you post 100%, but this is one area I think we disagree. I do not believe it within the authority of the church to change the substance of the supper. Your post of Lk. 5:33-39 is perfectly appropriate, and I would argue that it was the continuation of the OT passover meal wine. From there, I would argue that even though he did not specify the type of bread, he certainly would have used unleavened bread if for no other reason then to comply with the law of the passover. This is one case where the rite was changed in meaning, but I see no authority to change the substance. 



> Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, *not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness*, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.


1 Co. 5:6 - 8 would not be a sufficient passage to establish a requirement, I would think the phrase "*not with old leaven*, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness" points to not using leaven in the bread.

I see no reason to suppose that there is latitude in this ... so I respectfully disagree ... very respectfully in fact. I am teachable on the issue, but I'd want to see the scriptural warrant for changing. From my understanding, the use of grape juice was only instituted at the time of prohibition (and is almost exclusive to U.S. based or planted churches) in response to charges of hypocrisy in the use of wine.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 4, 2009)

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.


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 4, 2009)

Interesting thread...

I wasn't aware of that distinction Fred. Thanks. I should have caught it in my study.

When I taught on the Lord's Supper last year we decided to go with a matzo cracker and real wine for the reasons Rogerant gave. However, we see it as a preference rather than a mandate, although we do see it as more consistent with what is represented during the last supper. As Lawrence and others pointed out, the lack of leaven symbolizes sinlessness. Wine is a blessing from God and also is associated with blessings, feasts and celebrations. Often the celebratory nature of communion is lost. But that is what this remembrance is.

"Daddy, why does he break that cracker instead of giving us out own?"
"Why does he use a cracker?"
"Why do we use wine?"

These questions could come from visitors or children in our church giving us a wonderful opportunity to teach further. It's not necessary. But I do think it's a great opportunity and the symbolism is something we desired to pursue and retain for these reasons as well as thinking that they best represent what Jesus would have had during the LS. And they seem to best remind us of the differing aspects of the Gospel involved in the LS.

But we'd use biscuits and cherry juice if that's all we had.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 4, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...



No, I am being serious. 

I am trying to figure out just how important the details are. Is it better to hold off on the Lord's Supper, or make due with anything that somewhat matches the correct elements. This will help me to figure out just how important the "how" of the Lord's Supper is. 

We have celebrated with local foodstuffs. Some cultures do not use bread, but some locals use some sort of starchy food as a staple, like sago or taro root.


If anything will do in a pinch, then when not in a pinch are we obligated to be as exact as possible to the original supper?




This question also has relationship to baptism. Many baptists will serve grape juice for the supper but will insist that if we do not follow the NT example of baptism to the tee then it is an invalid baptism.


P.s. I am sorry if any past facetiousness makes you just assume present smart-alecky-ness.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 4, 2009)

manito2000 said:


> Hi everyone...
> 
> Maybe it's because I did not search for the right terms...but couldn't find a post that specifically addreses by bread for the Lord's Supper question...
> 
> ...



Abraham,

The idea of the Eucharist is closely associated with Church discipline, and the significance of the Sacrifice of the Passover, fulfilled in Christ:



> 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.



When we keep the Holy Supper with profane men, and do not excommunicate them, the feast is a travesty and invites judgment from the Lord. When we purge them out, we keep the feast with sincerity and truth.

It cannot escape a Reformed theologian (at least if untainted by modern forms of Biblical Theology) the presumption of continuity between the Passover and the Holy Supper, as well as the significance of the bread in terms of Paul's reasoning in this passage.

That said, my wife makes a home-made batch of Scottish shortbread for the Holy Supper, and we use California Port Wine with a smaller allowance of grape juice.

Cheers,


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 4, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 4, 2009)

I don't have a preference on the type of bread. Not sure that the type is what is important. The fact that you use a bread to depict Christ's body and what that all means is what's important. Never heard of using white wine.....not sure that the Bible gives specifics on the color........just as long as we don't start sharing the same cup I'm good!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 4, 2009)

Brian,
Disagreeing with me is fine, BTW. I do not want people treating what I suggest as though it ever was an unchallengeable deliverance.


Why are you assuming that 1Cor.5:6-8 is teaching us, in accordance with the LS observance?
The passage is speaking of Passover, and NOT the LS.

We are to keep PASSOVER, says Paul.
Do we keep Passover in or by the Lord's Supper?
Is that the NT way of thinking?

What I mean is, why doesn't a careful exegete like Calvin or Hodge (who goes out of his way to DENY this passage teaches with respect to the LS) make this point? Were they dense?


Mk.2:26, the ordinary word for bread is _qualified_ by the term "of Presence"

The loaves of firstfruits, Lev.23:17 (that is, for Pentecost, another OT feast), and other vow-offerings (Lev.7:13) were supposed to be leavened. So, it isn't the case that leaven was without ceremonial use in the OT.

If anything, the NT rites "sum up" a great deal of OT matter, not merely one feast Passover, but Pentecost, Tabernacles, etc., and sacrifices, and... We are unwise to attempt perfect one-to one correspondences--one NT practice with one OT.


----------



## KMK (Aug 4, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Regardless of what is used - unleavened or leavened bread, or whatever - I think it is an important act of symbolism for the minister to show one loaf, break it, and for that loaf (now broken) to be disseminated to the people and for them to take their particular piece from that larger section.
> 
> Even while deployed, when I was forced to use MRE crackers, I was able to do this: (As some of you know) ONE cracker is actually 4 squares and so I just broke the cracker up and the people broke off subsequently smaller sections.
> 
> ...



I agree.

If the congregation is too large for one loaf, the pieces could be broken ahead of time and a second loaf could be broken before the eyes of the congregation. The LS is, after all, the Gospel in 3-D. The 'breaking' of Christ's body and the 'pouring out' of His blood are important elements of the picture.

I also agree that 'common' bread should be used. Sometimes we use unleavened, and sometimes leavened.

The real important issue at stake is whether the partakers should sit 'at' or 'about' the table!


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 5, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Brian,
> Disagreeing with me is fine, BTW. I do not want people treating what I suggest as though it ever was an unchallengeable deliverance.
> 
> 
> ...



I would agree that the LS sums up a multitude of the OT feasts, and that is precisely why I would think the 1 CO 5:8 verse is critical. The LS is the only feast we have now. When Paul says, therefore "let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven (i.e., yeast), nor with the leaven of of malice and wickedness" the feast we keep is the LS. There is no other. When Christ instituted the LS, if it was at the feast of passover, then it had to be with unleavened bread, or Christ would have been violating the ceremonial law of Ex 12:15 (not that he could not have even as David did in eating the bread of the presence, but it seems to go against everything in the passages saying that preparations were made, which would include getting rid of all the yeast in the house, and there was no overriding issue of need.) And while I acknowledge the footnotes for the WCF are not the substance of the confession, I would think the use of the 1 Co 5 passage in the chapter dealing with the LS (footnote 555) would point to at least some group of godly men thinking the passage dealt with the LS.

I fully agree there is a qualifier in bread in Mark 2, yet the qualifier seems to be to point toward specification of the bread of the Presence, but it still uses the term for bread (and does not use the term for unleavened, even though we know it would have been unleavened). The point is that I do not know as the word "artos" would always mean leavened bread, and the lexicon I have indicates it is a possibly much broader term, and that it can refer to unleavened bread or even food in general (there is one reference in the NASB that translates it as meal). I would seriously doubt that Christ used leavened bread, rather than keeping the ceremonial law of the passover.

I fully agree that what we celebrate is not just a passover, it is more. The feast I think Paul refers to is the LS, but he uses the prefiguration of the passover (and brings in the knowledge of that type) to point to the celebration of our only feast.

Is that so far from the text? If Christ used unleavened bread, if Paul was using the passover to tell us that the celebration of the only feast we do celebrate is to be without either literal leaven (old leaven) or figurative leaven (malice and wickedness) then it would seem it was established by Christ, confirmed by Paul, and we would only change it if we err.

If it were truly incidental to the sacrament it would make no difference what is used. But it would seem that there is little to indicate it would be anything other than unleavened bread, and the 1 Co 5 passage would point to it being unleavened and substance.

If the loaf used were truly incidental, then a meatloaf could just as easily be used. If we say that bread is substance (that is, not meatloaf or some other food), then it would seem that the strength that gives us the need to use bread would also require unleavened bread.

By the way, what I said before still stands ... there are so few times when I find myself at odds with your wisdom, I really have to question myself when I see I am disagreeing with your posts. This being no exception. If it weren't for having been through a long course of study on worship myself (lead by someone I equally respect) I would probably not have any reason to question at all.

I hope to understand more nearly perfect how your position is formulated. I used to hold to it being incidental myself and actually liked the use of a fairly hefty loaf from which everyone tore a piece for the supper. Now we use matzo, so it is still a "loaf" (cracker) from which everyone gets a piece (broken ahead of time to assure it is enough for everyone), but the cracker is broken ahead of time, and while I liked being able to tear my own piece, I also realize that if the use of unleavened bread is commanded, then my own preference is meaningless.


----------



## dr_parsley (Aug 5, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 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.





Contra_Mundum said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2009)

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 (Aug 5, 2009)

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 (Aug 5, 2009)

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 (Aug 5, 2009)

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


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 5, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Brian,
> ...



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 (Aug 6, 2009)

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 (Aug 6, 2009)

chbrooking said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


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



The same for me.

God's blessings on you, Brian!


----------



## Brian Withnell (Aug 8, 2009)

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 (Aug 9, 2009)

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 (Aug 9, 2009)

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 (Aug 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> 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 (Aug 10, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> 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).


----------

