Bread in the Lord's Supper
- Thread starter Dan....
- Start date
- Status
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I think 3, whatever is available to the common people in the area. I've been to services where one or the other is used and I don't think it's a big deal. The point is what it symbolizes. The unleaven is probably more common simply because it's cheaper, easier to dispense, and easier to clean up.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Does the Regulative Principle of Worship apply? If so, what does that mean? If not, why not?
I prefer unleavened but don't think we can make a case that excludes leavened bread.
My thinking on the matter - Would not the bread Jesus used to institute the Supper (from the Passover observance with His disciples) of necessity been unleavened? There could be no leaven in the house at all. (interestingly, wine is unleavened too - the fermenation processs results in no yeast!)
As leaven represents so often sin in the Bible (not exclusively, but often) it is the perfect picture of what the bread and wine represent - Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God!
I would also be curious regarding those who would allow leavened bread - do you use wine or is juice okay? Wine is unleavened and so is the juice. When the juice is heated (to prevent fermentation) the yeast is killed without the production of alcohol.
Phillip
My thinking on the matter - Would not the bread Jesus used to institute the Supper (from the Passover observance with His disciples) of necessity been unleavened? There could be no leaven in the house at all. (interestingly, wine is unleavened too - the fermenation processs results in no yeast!)
As leaven represents so often sin in the Bible (not exclusively, but often) it is the perfect picture of what the bread and wine represent - Jesus Christ, the sinless Son of God!
I would also be curious regarding those who would allow leavened bread - do you use wine or is juice okay? Wine is unleavened and so is the juice. When the juice is heated (to prevent fermentation) the yeast is killed without the production of alcohol.
Phillip
puriteen18
Puritan Board Freshman
I would tend to think that with all of the symbolism associated with leaven in the Scriptures that unleaven should be used.
Such symbolic associations as I Cor. 5.8:
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.
It would be strange to preach "Purge out therefore the old leaven" and then have leavened bread.
But the side in favour of leavened bread could respond with Matt. 16.12.
However, none of these verses speak directly of the Sacrament, atleast to my understanding.
Such symbolic associations as I Cor. 5.8:
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.
It would be strange to preach "Purge out therefore the old leaven" and then have leavened bread.
But the side in favour of leavened bread could respond with Matt. 16.12.
However, none of these verses speak directly of the Sacrament, atleast to my understanding.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Thoughts from Calvin:
"In regard to the external form of the ordinance,whether or not believers are to take in their hands and divide among themselves, or each is to eat what is given him: whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbor; whether the bread be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church, though it is certain that it was the custom of the ancient church for all to receive into their hand. And Christ said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves" (Luke 22:17). History relates that leavened and ordinary bread was used before the time of Alexander the bishop of Rome, who was the first that was delighted with unleavened bread: for what reason I see not, unless it was to draw the wondering eyes of the populace by the novelty of the spectacle, more than to train them in sound religion." Institutes Bk.4, Ch. 17, Sec. 43.
[Edited on 19-1-2005 by puritansailor]
"In regard to the external form of the ordinance,whether or not believers are to take in their hands and divide among themselves, or each is to eat what is given him: whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbor; whether the bread be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church, though it is certain that it was the custom of the ancient church for all to receive into their hand. And Christ said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves" (Luke 22:17). History relates that leavened and ordinary bread was used before the time of Alexander the bishop of Rome, who was the first that was delighted with unleavened bread: for what reason I see not, unless it was to draw the wondering eyes of the populace by the novelty of the spectacle, more than to train them in sound religion." Institutes Bk.4, Ch. 17, Sec. 43.
[Edited on 19-1-2005 by puritansailor]
Thanks for the input and the link to the article.
In studying to see when the Lord's Supper was instituted, and in reading the article that Andrew linked above, I've run into some confusion. Was the Lord's Supper instituted at Passover, or was it prior to Passover?
According to Leviticus 23, Passover was the 14th day of the First Month (23:5). The following day was the first of the feast of unleavened bread, which went for seven days (23:6).
Hence:
Nisan 14 - Passover
Nisan 15-21 -Unleavened Bread.
According to the gospel of John, 13:1,4 says that the supper was prior to the feast of Passover. 19:14 show Jesus before Pilate (day after the supper) on the day of preparation for Passover. If this was the 14th, then the supper would have been on the 13th, hence, prior to the Passover.
However, per Matt 26:17,20,26 the supper was on the evening of the first day of Unleavened Bread.
?????
In studying to see when the Lord's Supper was instituted, and in reading the article that Andrew linked above, I've run into some confusion. Was the Lord's Supper instituted at Passover, or was it prior to Passover?
According to Leviticus 23, Passover was the 14th day of the First Month (23:5). The following day was the first of the feast of unleavened bread, which went for seven days (23:6).
Hence:
Nisan 14 - Passover
Nisan 15-21 -Unleavened Bread.
According to the gospel of John, 13:1,4 says that the supper was prior to the feast of Passover. 19:14 show Jesus before Pilate (day after the supper) on the day of preparation for Passover. If this was the 14th, then the supper would have been on the 13th, hence, prior to the Passover.
However, per Matt 26:17,20,26 the supper was on the evening of the first day of Unleavened Bread.
?????
that confusing fact is due to the calendar of the day!
Due to the captivity of Judah and other factors, the calendar for Galilee (to the north) and Judah (to the south) were a day apart! One calculated days from sunrise to sunrise (north), the other from sunset to sunset (south).
Interestingly, this allows for Jesus (from the north, Nazareth of Galilee!) and His disciples to lawfully partake of the Passover one day before the official observance in Jerusalem (in the south)!
Fascinating. So the Supper was instituted on the Day of Passover according to the northern calendar and the day before Passover on the southern calendar. This means that Jesus had the Passover on the right day for those from the north and then on the next day, the Passover for the southern region, at the very hour the Lamb's were being slain for the Passover observance in Jerusalem, He was nailed to the cross and died!
He really was the Passover Lamb!
(for more information see the notes in The MacArthur Study Bible in the introduction to the Gospel of John, interpretive challenges)
Phillip
Due to the captivity of Judah and other factors, the calendar for Galilee (to the north) and Judah (to the south) were a day apart! One calculated days from sunrise to sunrise (north), the other from sunset to sunset (south).
Interestingly, this allows for Jesus (from the north, Nazareth of Galilee!) and His disciples to lawfully partake of the Passover one day before the official observance in Jerusalem (in the south)!
Fascinating. So the Supper was instituted on the Day of Passover according to the northern calendar and the day before Passover on the southern calendar. This means that Jesus had the Passover on the right day for those from the north and then on the next day, the Passover for the southern region, at the very hour the Lamb's were being slain for the Passover observance in Jerusalem, He was nailed to the cross and died!
He really was the Passover Lamb!
(for more information see the notes in The MacArthur Study Bible in the introduction to the Gospel of John, interpretive challenges)
Phillip
Thanks Pastor Way. That makes sense. Then, Matthew would have been using the Galilean day while John was using the Jerusalem day, correct?
I do not have a MacArthur Study Bible. Per chance does he cite some additional sources in his notes?
In the article referenced above, the author says,
..if what MacArthur says is the case, then Lietzmann & co. would not have room to argue that it was prior to the Passover and could have been leavened bread.
I do not have a MacArthur Study Bible. Per chance does he cite some additional sources in his notes?
In the article referenced above, the author says,
..if what MacArthur says is the case, then Lietzmann & co. would not have room to argue that it was prior to the Passover and could have been leavened bread.
Phillip
PS - as a side note, according to preparation for the Passover, all leaven was to be removed from the house on the 14th of the month, which was the day of Passover, and no leaven could be present until the 22nd day of the month. So from Nisan 14 to 21 there could be no leaven in the house. The Passover meal was on the evening of the 14th. This would of course then have included the day of Passover as reckoned by the Galilean calendar for Jesus and His disciples. In other words, if it really was the Passover that they ate, then they did not eat leavened bread.
[Edited on 1-20-05 by pastorway]
- Status
