At His last meal with His disciples before He was crucified, commonly known as the Last Supper, the Lord Jesus made a point of sharing some bread and wine among them. He also made it clear that this sharing in bread and wine was something that His followers should continue to do in remembrance of Him.
Matthew, Mark, Luke
and Paul all describe this event. Here is what Paul says about it in 1
Corinthians 11:23-26:
‘23 For
I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on
the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given
thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in
remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also he
took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as
often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death
until he comes.’ (ESV)
The repeated act of
sharing in bread and wine by Christians is described in 1 Corinthians 11:20 as
‘the Lord’s Supper’, and this is how I will refer to it in this article.
In what follows, our
focus will be specifically on the bread that Christians eat at the Lord’s
Supper.
Those who say
that we should use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper
When Christians today
eat the Lord’s Supper, leavened bread is usually used, i.e., bread that has undergone
fermentation to cause it to rise.
However, there are
some Christians who say that this is a mistake. They say that only unleavened
bread should be used at the Lord’s Supper, and they argue in this way:
The Last Supper
that Jesus ate with His disciples was a Passover meal. At this meal only
unleavened bread was eaten. So, when Jesus says that Christians should continue
to share bread together at the Lord’s Supper after the pattern of the Last
Supper, to properly follow that pattern we need to use unleavened bread.
Besides, in 1
Corinthians 5:6-8, when Paul says that Christ is our Passover lamb that has
been sacrificed, he mentions unleavened bread positively and leavened bread
negatively in the context. This also helps to show that we are supposed to use
unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper, which was patterned on the Last Supper,
which was a Passover meal.
So what should we
make of this argument? Does it hold water or are there problems with it?
It is certainly true
that when Jesus shared bread among His disciples at the Last Supper it would
have been unleavened bread that He used. It was a Passover meal, at which only
unleavened bread would have been eaten.
However, I believe
that the above argument isn’t actually convincing, as I will explain in what
follows.
It is wrong to
assume precise correspondence between Last Supper and Lord’s Supper
First, it is too
simplistic just to assume that the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last
Supper is something that must be carried over to the Lord’s Supper.
All other things
being equal, this detail may or may not be something that is necessary at the
Lord’s Supper, and evidence for or against would need to be sought (see the
rest of this article). But it shouldn’t just be assumed.
1 Corinthians
5:6-8 is not about the Lord’s Supper
Second, as far as 1
Corinthians 5:6-8 is concerned, this passage doesn’t seem to have anything to
do with the Lord’s Supper. Here is what Paul says:
‘6 Your
boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole
lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you
really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8
Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of
malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.’ (ESV)
In verses 1-5 and 9-13 of this chapter, Paul talks about
how the Corinthians should expel from their congregation people claiming to be
Christians who are unrepentant of various sins. Verses 6-8 tie in with this
theme.
In v. 6 Paul begins
by referring to leaven, i.e., dough that has undergone fermentation. If leaven
is added to unleavened dough, the whole lump becomes leavened.
Then in the first
part of v. 7 Paul makes it clear that he is using leaven as a metaphor for
moral evil, and he tells the Corinthians to get rid of this leaven, which was
characteristic of their old way of life but should not exist in their new way
of life as followers of Jesus.
Having referred to
unleavened dough, this causes Paul in the second part of v. 7 to think about
the Jewish Passover sacrifice and meal, and he makes the point that Jesus was
the fulfillment of that sacrifice.
Finally, in v. 8 Paul
says that Christians should celebrate the Passover festival in a way that
avoids malice and evil but embraces sincerity and truth. Importantly, the fact
that his references to leaven are used metaphorically shows that his reference
to celebrating Passover should also be understood metaphorically. This has
nothing to do with literally celebrating the Jewish Passover or the Lord’s
Supper. Rather, this ‘celebration’ refers to a lifelong position of taking
advantage of the forgiveness and new life that can be found in Jesus Christ.
In short, there is
nothing in this passage that suggests that Christians should use unleavened
bread when they eat the Lord’s Supper.
Not bothering to
refer to the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper
Third, there is a
strong argument against the idea that unleavened bread is necessary at the
Lord’s Supper. This has to do with which Greek word was chosen to refer to the
bread at the Last Supper.
There are four places
in the New Testament where we are told that at the Last Supper Jesus took
bread, broke it and gave it to His disciples. These are Matthew 26:26, Mark
14:22, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-24 that I quoted above.
In the first century
the standard Greek word for bread was artos. This word was used to refer to
leavened bread and unleavened bread, and it didn’t specify whether the bread
was leavened or unleavened.
However, there was
also the word azuma, which referred specifically to unleavened bread.
At the Last Supper
only unleavened bread was present, so both words, artos and azuma, would have
been appropriate to refer to this bread.
Importantly, Matthew,
Mark, Luke and Paul all used the word artos in the passages I mentioned, i.e.,
the word that didn’t specify whether the bread was leavened or unleavened. They
could have used azuma but chose not to. By a simple change of one word for
another (azuma in place of artos) all of these authors could have drawn
attention to the unleavened nature of the bread at the Last Supper, but none of
them bothered to do this.
If these authors had
thought that it was important to have unleavened bread at the Lord’s Supper
because the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened, why do none of them bother
to mention for their readers that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened?
And why did the Holy Spirit, who inspired all these authors, not cause them to
mention that this bread was unleavened?
To my mind, this is a
strong point. If Christians are supposed to eat unleavened bread at the Lord’s
Supper because unleavened bread was eaten at the Last Supper (as it was), we
would expect at least some of the passages that refer to the institution of the
Lord’s Supper to mention that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened. But
none of them do.
Someone might want to
argue that first century readers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians would
all have known that the bread at the Last Supper was unleavened, and that there
was therefore no need for any of the authors of these books to mention that.
In reply to this,
firstly, it was surely the case that some Gentile Christian readers would not
have known that this bread was unleavened. And secondly, quite apart from
whether readers knew this or not, we would still expect this to be pointed out
if it was theologically significant.
So the fact that
these four passages all pass by the opportunity to highlight that the bread at
the institution of the Lord’s Supper was unleavened seems to quite strongly
imply that Christians are not required to eat unleavened bread at the Lord’s
Supper.
Leavened and
unleavened bread are both fine
Even if we conclude,
as I believe we should, that there is nothing wrong with eating leavened bread
at the Lord’s Supper, that of course doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with
using unleavened bread instead.
Regardless of whether
we use leavened or unleavened bread, sharing in one loaf symbolises the way
that we share in the benefits of the death of the Lord for us on the cross.
See also:
How Often Should Christians Eat the Lord’s Supper?
Beware of Becoming Attached to Church Traditions
Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church
Services?
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.