# Using Leavened Bread in the Lord's Supper



## SEAGOON (Mar 5, 2008)

Hi All,

For anyone interested, I have a brief article and quotations round up on why the Reformed used leavened bread in the Lord's Supper available online at:
Must We Use Unleavened Bread in the Lord’s Supper? « Building Old School Churches

I figured it might be of use to someone considering the subject in a Sunday School, or answering questions from church members. The study briefly reviews the biblical data, and then quotes A.A. and Charles Hodge, A'Brakel, Dabney, Smith, Spurgeon, Calvin, Beza, Reyburn, and Grossman on the subject.

Also, in other even more exciting news, Building Old School Churches will soon be republishing Carl Bogue's too long out of print article "Running Unsent" on the problem of those who enter the ministry without really having been called.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 5, 2008)

Very interested, Neddie. Thank you. We have a family refusing to turn up to church over this issue...


----------



## SEAGOON (Mar 6, 2008)

Hi Jonathan,



JonathanHunt said:


> Very interested, Neddie. Thank you. We have a family refusing to turn up to church over this issue...



Well then the timing was providentially ordered by God. Actually, I originally wrote it in response to the objections of one of our members as well, although there was no threat not to attend involved. We have had one person leave over our use of wine in the Lord's supper though. In our area of the country, its usually the other sacrament and not immersing that is the make or break for new attenders.

Glad it was helpful to you, (and a what, what, what, whaaaaat!)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 6, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> Very interested, Neddie. Thank you. We have a family refusing to turn up to church over this issue...



Rebuke them. It is no reason to neglect the means of grace even if they are correct. The reason people leave churches because of small matters is usually because of their pride, not their desire for purity.

in my opinion the use of leaven/unleavened bread was a circumstance, because unleavened bread was all that was available during the passover when the sacrament was administered. Hence, by valid logical deduction, we may conclude that it is a circumstance.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 6, 2008)

It would not keep me from attending but I do have strong convictions that only fermented wine and unleaven bread is only to be used.....

If two identical churches existed within 30 miles and one served leaven bread and one served unleaven bread and nothing else differed between churches then I would attend the unleaven bread church. As for if there other differences, that would have to be decided on a case by case matter....


----------



## SEAGOON (Mar 6, 2008)

HI Thunaer,



thunaer said:


> It would not keep me from attending but I do have strong convictions that only fermented wine and unleaven bread is only to be used.....
> 
> If two identical churches existed within 30 miles and one served leaven bread and one served unleaven bread and nothing else differed between churches then I would attend the unleaven bread church. As for if there other differences, that would have to be decided on a case by case matter....



I'm guessing then that you didn't find A.A. and Charles Hodge, A'Brakel, Dabney, Smith, Spurgeon, Calvin, Beza, Reyburn, and Grossman convincing on the subject.

What biblical evidence then would you put forth that the church must use _unleavened bread_ in the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 6, 2008)

I respect those men but that does not mean I will agree with them everytime....

Whether the bread was common or not really does not mean much to me... 

1. Unleaven Bread was commanded for the Passover.
2. the Lord Supper grew out of the Passover Meal.
3. Christ Used Unleaven Bread.
4. By Example Christ Used, so to must we use.. Otherwise Why not Grape Juice instead of Wine. I believe it to be inconsistent to require one and not the other.
5. The Hebrews were told to Purge the Leaven out of their houses and had symbolism which carries over to the Supper of the Lord...
6. In my humble opinion, The RPW requires us whether by Implicit or Explicit command to follow the principles for worship... Due to the Above, It is my belief that we must use Unleaven Bread and Fermented Wine by Example of Christ and his command to "Do this".

I believe it to be a violation of the RPW and a violation of the symbolism behind it... Just as Grape Juice is a Violation or uninspired songs in worship is a violation... 




SEAGOON said:


> HI Thunaer,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 6, 2008)

Seagoon,

My question for you is.... If you truly believe the type of bread is indifferent then why would you not allow unleaven bread for this family? If for just the Weaker Brother Understanding? If in your mind it does not matter one way or the other then would it not be loving and understanding for the weaker brother if you changed to unleaven bread?

Why weigh down the conscious of this family if they truly have strong convictions regarding the elements of the Supper and you deem it indifferent?

I would understand if the matter was not indifferent and you had strong convictions regarding the matter as the Pastor and you had biblical text to support your opinion....


----------



## SEAGOON (Mar 6, 2008)

Hello Thunaer,



thunaer said:


> 1. Unleaven Bread was commanded for the Passover.
> 2. the Lord Supper grew out of the Passover Meal.
> 3. Christ Used Unleaven Bread.
> 4. By Example Christ Used, so to must we use.. Otherwise Why not Grape Juice instead of Wine. I believe it to be inconsistent to require one and not the other.
> ...



First, let's go from the general to the specific. The RPW states that God reveals to us the acceptable way of worshipping in scripture and that he is not to be worshiped according to our own imaginations and devisings or in any way not prescribed. Well Thunaer, the elements that are prescribed for us in the Word of God in the Lord's Supper are Bread (_Artos_) and Wine. Artos specifically means Leavened Bread, there is a word for unleavened bread (_Azumos_) but it is never used in reference to the Lord's Supper. None of the Puritan documents including the Standards and the Directory for Public Worship require us to use unleavened bread, only "bread" and indeed the bread the Puritans used in communion was leavened. To say that the RPW requires us to use UNLEAVENED bread is to create a prescription that scripture doesn't and which the Puritans (not well known for ignoring the RPW) didn't recognize. Additionally if we were to say that scripture _prescribes_ the kind of bread we are to use, then I put it to you that scripture uses the word ARTOS meaning leavened bread, so the prescribed bread would be ARTOS (leavened) and not AZUMOS (unleavened). 

Regarding your specifics:

1) Yes, in the Passover the Jews did not use Leaven. Not because leaven is sinful but as a memorial to the haste with which they left Egypt. That was the significance of the use of unleavened bread and the use of this bread was symbolic. 

2) Not really. The first Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, the final passover meal, but it is not simply the NT passover and symbolizes Christ's act of redemption. Also, there is no HASTE aspect to the Lord's Supper, the lack of leaven would contribute nothing to Communion. Bread symbolizes the body of Christ in Communion, but what would the absence of the leaven of bread, symbolizing haste, signify in the sacrament?

3 & 4) That's our guess, actually the gospel writers didn't consider it important enough to note whether he used leavened or unleavened bread, neither do they note whether he passed it to the left or the right, whether the wine was red or white and so on, because they aren't concerned with details like that.

Also Christ used the bread at hand. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul addresses the Corinthians (a mostly gentile church) speaks of the Lord's Supper and uses the word for Leavened bread (Artos). Their Lord's Supper followed an _Agapen_ a feast or meal at which they could be expected to eat ordinary Corinthian leavened bread, he doesn't tell them to go out and get unleavened bread for the following Lord's Supper.

5) The Hebrews were told to purge out the leaven for the PASSOVER and FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD for the rest of the year they made and ate leavened bread, nowhere in the NT are we told to purge out the LEAVEN OF BREAD and 1 Cor. 5:8 is no more speaking of the Leaven of Bread than 1 Cor. 6:19 is meant to be an injunction against smoking. 

The Grape Juice/Wine analogy does not apply. Grape Juice is not wine and was unknown as a table beverage until Welch succeeded in Pasteurizing and Vacuum packing it in the late 19th century. 

Besides if we take the "Do _this_" in the first institution as meaning *"Do this exactly as I'm doing it now"* why do we:

1) Include Women
2) Not Hold the Supper exclusively in the Evening (Matt. 26:20) which is also the time when the Passover Meal is held.
2) Not have a meal first (especially given that the Apostolic church DID)
3) Not Recline at the Table
etc., etc., etc.

Why do we suddenly become prescriptive on a detail _that isn't in the text of scripture_ (unleavened bread) and ignore all the others I listed above that _are_ in the text?


----------



## SEAGOON (Mar 6, 2008)

Hi Thunaer,



thunaer said:


> Seagoon,
> 
> My question for you is.... If you truly believe the type of bread is indifferent then why would you not allow unleaven bread for this family? If for just the Weaker Brother Understanding? If in your mind it does not matter one way or the other then would it not be loving and understanding for the weaker brother if you changed to unleaven bread?
> 
> ...



For the same reason that we don't use Grape Juice even though some Christians coming in have reservations about the use of wine, or immerse in Baptism even though some Christians think it is the only way to Baptize, or practice closed communion, EP, headcoverings, dresses only for women, no hair-cutting, no movies, no use of instrumentation, KJV-only etc and basically search for every greater scruple in the Christian community until we become essentially a very strict Primitive Baptist church (apologies to the PBs on the board). This is even more true when one considers that the above scruples have far more support in the Reformed Community and in Reformed history than requiring the use of unleavened bread.

We worship in the manner that our Constitution and Session have determined is in accord with the prescriptions of Scripture. We fully realize that not everyone agrees, and if they feel that worshipping as we do is sinful, then they may of course go to a church that fits their thinking on doctrine. In the meantime, I'm not going to bind the conscience of the congregation to the preferences or scruples of any individual in the church.

We have for instance also lost people or failed to have them come back, because of our cessationist theology, a lack of a choir, a lack of a praise band, failure to support National Israel, not following the church year, not having a youth group and so on. I fully understand that pleasing every American Christian is not going to be possible, so we try (and perhaps some feel fail) to keep to as simple and biblical a model as we can. In the end Thunaer, I try to remember that its not the members of the church who will call me to account for my ministry.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 6, 2008)

Seagoon,

I completely understand when it comes to things that are not indifferent to the word of God but there is a little wiggle room when it comes to thing that are Adiaphora (Things Indifferent). If you believe the matter between types of bread does not matter then in your mind and conscious, it is Adiaphora... But if a person have scruples regarding something you deem Adiaphora then I would in the same position for unity and for charity change it for the weaker brother principle...

About your previous post with your reasons... I am not really sure if it would be a benefit for us to hash this out at the moment.. For one, I am not sure we can come to agreement regarding this issue or as you put it with issues (modified by me) "only way to Baptize, or practice closed communion, EP, headcoverings, dresses only for women, no hair-cutting, no use of instrumentation". Especially since I am a Sprinkling Baptist who believes in Restricted Communion, and adhere to EP with no instrumentation and I believe in the headcoverings, Ankle Length Dresses only for woman and no hair-cutting for the ladies...  (I am not KJV-Only but textus Receptus only and I am Ok with movies)

Secondly, I am in pain tonight and heavily on pain medications, so I am not even able to think clearly and offer a coherent reply and I have try to get some Psalms Scores Done by This Sabbath for a church who has requested them for introducing Psalmody to the congregation. So perhaps another time....

By the way, for your list of other things that you mentioned (cessationist theology, a lack of a choir, a lack of a praise band, failure to support National Israel, not following the church year, not having a youth group and so on.) Well, you have biblical support not to do these things... And I am excited that you are a Pastor of a church that does not have these things... May God raise up more like you.....

P.S. You mentioned the Lord Supper in the Evening... I have no problems with that.. In fact I have been to two Reformed Baptist Churches that only practice it in the evening.. For two reasons... First, Because of the example of the First Lord Supper. Secondly, pragmatically, It is easier for restricted communion since most visitors only come in the morning and not during the evening service... 


Michael


SEAGOON said:


> Hi Thunaer,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

