A Leavened Lord's Supper?
It is interesting that I have been asked the question twice now in the scope of a couple of months regarding our use of leavened (with yeast) bread at the Lord's table. It is interesting because I have never had a question regarding our practice in the seven years of my ministry here before a couple of months ago. So, in case you are wondering, here is why.
Let me tell you why it is even a question. The bread used in the passover meal was unleavened bread. So, this was the 'bread' used in the last supper. There is a case to be made, presumably, upon this evidence that the use of such unleavened bread is to be normative for Christian observance of the Lord's supper.
We need to remember that the use of this bread in the passover observance referred to the haste of the Isrealite exodus from Egypt. In the feast of unleavened bread, the yeast, or at least the old yeast, was symbolic of sin and corruption that needed to be cleansed from God's people. So, let's be clear- leaven itself was not evil and was normally used in baking bread. It was the 'old leaven' that truly symbolized sin.
There is no specific instruction in the gospels or epistles as to the use of leavened or unleavened bread. In fact, the word for bread in the gospels at the Lord's Supper is 'bread' and not 'unleavened bread' ('artos' and not 'azumos'). The main reference in the New Testament used to support the use of unleavened bread is in 1 Corinthians 5:8, "Let us celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The context of this passage is pointing us to purity as a spiritual people through proper discipline of errant members. Paul is calling us to gather in purity, 'cleansing out the old leaven', and is not making a case for what sort of bread is used in the eucharist meal.
The reason we use leaven bread is because of the primary imagery of the Lord's Supper: the breaking of his body for as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins; our fellowship with him in his death, burial and resurrection by faith; our fellowship together as one body symbolized in our partaking of the bread; the proclamation of the new covenant inaugurated in his broken body and shed blood. The imagery of 'purity' through the use of unleavened bread is simply not primary in the New Testament. Nor is it of great import in the New Covenant eucharist celebration. It had great meaning in an ancient near eastern context where people baked their own bread and used the leaven to do so (and so needed to 'purge' or clean out the old leaven for health and purity reasons). This is completely lost on us today, and the New Testament gives no cause for us to push such imagery in the Lord's Supper. We use leavened bread because that is what 'bread' is to us.
Lastly, let's remember that this is a matter of 'adiaphora' (things indifferent) and should not cause division. God gives us a charter of liberty in His Word in such matters. He looks primarily at our hearts in such practice and liturgy. Let's beware of sacramentalism that places undo emphasis upon outward ritual and the physical elements, when Christ in his Word calls us (especially at the Lord's table) to examine our hearts before him and let our practice be a reflection of inward transformation and obedience.
Another pastor has written a nice defense and develops the argument a bit here.
Let me tell you why it is even a question. The bread used in the passover meal was unleavened bread. So, this was the 'bread' used in the last supper. There is a case to be made, presumably, upon this evidence that the use of such unleavened bread is to be normative for Christian observance of the Lord's supper.
We need to remember that the use of this bread in the passover observance referred to the haste of the Isrealite exodus from Egypt. In the feast of unleavened bread, the yeast, or at least the old yeast, was symbolic of sin and corruption that needed to be cleansed from God's people. So, let's be clear- leaven itself was not evil and was normally used in baking bread. It was the 'old leaven' that truly symbolized sin.
There is no specific instruction in the gospels or epistles as to the use of leavened or unleavened bread. In fact, the word for bread in the gospels at the Lord's Supper is 'bread' and not 'unleavened bread' ('artos' and not 'azumos'). The main reference in the New Testament used to support the use of unleavened bread is in 1 Corinthians 5:8, "Let us celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The context of this passage is pointing us to purity as a spiritual people through proper discipline of errant members. Paul is calling us to gather in purity, 'cleansing out the old leaven', and is not making a case for what sort of bread is used in the eucharist meal.
The reason we use leaven bread is because of the primary imagery of the Lord's Supper: the breaking of his body for as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins; our fellowship with him in his death, burial and resurrection by faith; our fellowship together as one body symbolized in our partaking of the bread; the proclamation of the new covenant inaugurated in his broken body and shed blood. The imagery of 'purity' through the use of unleavened bread is simply not primary in the New Testament. Nor is it of great import in the New Covenant eucharist celebration. It had great meaning in an ancient near eastern context where people baked their own bread and used the leaven to do so (and so needed to 'purge' or clean out the old leaven for health and purity reasons). This is completely lost on us today, and the New Testament gives no cause for us to push such imagery in the Lord's Supper. We use leavened bread because that is what 'bread' is to us.
Lastly, let's remember that this is a matter of 'adiaphora' (things indifferent) and should not cause division. God gives us a charter of liberty in His Word in such matters. He looks primarily at our hearts in such practice and liturgy. Let's beware of sacramentalism that places undo emphasis upon outward ritual and the physical elements, when Christ in his Word calls us (especially at the Lord's table) to examine our hearts before him and let our practice be a reflection of inward transformation and obedience.
Another pastor has written a nice defense and develops the argument a bit here.
Labels: Lord's Supper, Worship
posted by Pastor Erik at Tuesday, October 09, 2007
2 comments
