Unleavened Bread at Communion.
QUESTION.—"What kind of bread should be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper? Some say that unleavened bread alone should be used; others argue for leavened bread; and still others say that it makes no difference. Which is right? G. C. I." ANSWER.—To answer categorically, we should say that only unleavened should be used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. The reasons for this answer are as follows:— 1. By using the unleavened bread we follow the example of Christ. The Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ in connection with the last passover (Matt. 26:17-30), and it is certain that only unleavened bread was used on that occasion; because during the whole of the passover week, no particle of leaven was allowed in any Jewish dwelling. The law on this point was very strict. See Ex. 12:18-20. This may be said to be only negative testimony; but it is more than can be produced in favor of leavened bread. If in the absence of positive command, we follow the example of Christ, we certainly cannot go wrong. But this is not all that we have. 2. The Lord's Supper is designed to represent the death of Christ. See 1 Cor. 11:26. It is a memorial of that which was foreshadowed by the passover and by all the sacrifices of the old ceremonial law. There is, therefore, the same reason for using unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper that there was for using it in the passover. When Christ broke the bread, he said: "This is my body, which is broken for you." 1 Cor. 11:24. Since the bread of the communion represents Christ's body, it must be without blemish, or else it is not a fit symbol; for Peter says: "Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Peter 1:18, 19. Now leaven is fermentation, and fermentation is decomposition and decay. Then certainly leavened bread cannot fitly represent the spotless body of Christ, any more than leavened or fermented wine can properly represent his precious blood. Therefore we hold that it was no accident which led to the use of unleavened bread at the institution of the Lord's Supper. 3. This conclusion is verified by Ex. 23:18, which reads thus: "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread." This is a positive commandment, and leaves us no choice in the matter. It cannot be said that this applies only to the sacrifices under the old ceremonial law; for they were no more the blood of the Lord's sacrifices than is the cup of the Lord's Supper. Indeed, the Bible speaks more plainly of this than it does of those; for Christ himself said, when he took the cup: "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28. It is plain enough that Ex. 23:18 does not refer to the literal blood of Christ; for no man ever offered, or could offer that with anything; and it is equally plain that it does refer to anything that was or is used to represent Christ's blood, whether before or after his death. In view of the reasons here given, and especially of the explicit commandment in Ex. 23:18, we think we are justified in saying not only that it is right to use unleavened bread at communion, but that it is wrong to use any other. It may seem to some a trifling matter, but nothing can be a trifling matter upon which the Lord has seen fit to give a commandment.