Bread for the Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.

manito2000

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
 

William Price

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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.
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."
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
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.
 

Rogerant

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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."

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.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Iron Dramatist
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.
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."

Our Lord did not consecrate white wine.

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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Can we use saltines and grape soda then?

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

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?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.

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

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Can we use saltines and grape soda then?

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

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

Puritanboard Brimstone
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.

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?


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

Puritan Board Junior
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

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
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

Obi Wan Kenobi
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

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Is that the best approximation of Jesus' intent that you can achieve, in your immediate circumstances?
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?

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.

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

Puritan Board Professor
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.

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

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
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! :lol:
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
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.
 
Last edited:

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
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.

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! :lol:
 

Brian Withnell

Puritan Board Junior
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top