Significance of Unleavened Bread and Other Discussion Questions

A section devoted to expounding difficult, obscure or misunder¬stood passages of Scripture. and answering readers' queries. Questions are invited. Opportunity is also provided for discussion on readers' points of view. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Editorial Committee.

Question:

What is the significance of unleavened bread at the memorial meetings?

Answer:

Jesus himself used unleavened bread to rep­resent his body given for his disciples. Was this because no other bread was available during this national festival, or is there an alternative reason suggesting that no other kind of bread would have been acceptable?

Though Jesus makes no mention of the kind of bread used, Paul stresses the use of the un­leavened in keeping the feast. He based his reasoning upon the premise that Christ our passover is sacrificed for us (I Cor. 5:7). Was Paul relating the term unleavened to Jesus the slain lamb, or to the partakers? However con­sistent it may seem, applicability directly to the slain lamb is not the substance of his message.

He insists that in partaking, the leaven of malice and wickedness must give way to the unleavened of sincerity and truth. The fact that ‘bread’ is not mentioned in the original does not help either way, but it is of itself obvious that reference to the character and reputation of the partakers is the conclusion suggested by the context which urges the ecclesia to rid itself of sin in its midst.

However, if the leaven of malice and wickedness gives way to the positive glow -of sincerity and truth that will show no blemish under the illuminating rays of sunlight, it would certainly be consistent to use bread that would signify the same.

A survey of the Scriptural use of leaven will help us at this stage. It is applied negatively at least four ways: hypocrisy (Luke 12:1), false doctrine (Matt. 16:12), sin (1 Cor. 5.6), wrong persuasion (Gal. 5:8). A positive reference may be found in Christ’s use of it where the kingdom of God is likened to leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened.

But the self-propagating quality of the gospel is mentioned but once in contrast to the fermentation of sin in the body of believers. Absence of this element in the bread used in the memorial feast could signify the absence of these destroying qualities in the person of Christ, and the brother who so regards it would be correct in his assessment. But this does not mean he should condemn the brother who can partake of leaven and relate it to the power of the word in Jesus in the extension of the kingdom.

However, we must keep in perspective the fact that bad qualities are more likely to corrupt than good qualities are likely to beget their own likeness in others; and that the weight of evidence being four to one, it seems to suggest that unleavened bread would be more appropriate. If this be the only line followed, it would suggest that unleavened bread is the more Scriptural.

I must, of necessity, deviate from our brother’s question and ask another myself, lest I should leave an unfinished impression.

Question:

Does the Bible supply a reason for the absence of leaven in the first Passover? Also, how does this affect the necessity for its continuance in the mem­orial supper?

Answer:

It is often unnoticed that the only reason the Bible gives for God’s direction is the fact that they departed from Egypt in haste and that it would only be practical to use unleav­ened bread in such circumstances (Exodus 12:39). If this be the basic reason for God’s command, being thrust out in haste (v.11) and being delivered the selfsame day (v.12); the fact that no leaven was to be found in the houses of faithful Israelites for seven days of each subsequent anniversary in commemora­tion of their salvation from Egypt, would suggest the haste in which they departed. The qualities of holiness of the coming Redeemer would then be foreshadowed by the selection of a lamb without blemish, a fact so obvious that it can stand alone.

Paul’s allusion to unleavened in 1 Cor. 5 then becomes more confined to the qualities the partakers should display in preference to the kind of bread partaken. The fact that Jesus used unleavened bread is possibly limit­ed to the fact that no other was available whilst Israelites everywhere were commemor­ating the hasty escape from Egypt; that where­as other bread would equally be acceptable on other occasions, on this one it was only right that it should be used.

Whatever conclusion we may reach, it is only right to warn how inconsistent it would be for an ecclesia to insist upon the use of unleav­ened bread to the exclusion of freedom from malice and wickedness in condemning other ecclesias in their attitude to that which is but a symbol of sincerity and truth. How unlike a Christian institution is it when brethren belie the qualities they profess to be assimilating, when in reality they are denying the truths they represent and divide the body of Christ over such a shadow, mistaking it for the substance.

If unleavened bread be preferred by one ecclesia, I can share with them the same sin­cerity they display. But if there is strife in that ecclesia or with others over the appropriate­ness of the symbols, I would see in the un­leavened wafers usually offered the bias of that ecclesia towards the unscriptural action of dividing the body of Christ. The only factor Paul emphasises in relation to the material we use to commemorate the body of Jesus, is the one loaf, using this as a basic argument for preserving unity ( 1 Cor. 10:16-17).

This then leads me to another question, as I believe this to be an incomplete answer unless the subject can be followed through to a reasonable conclusion.

Question:

Does the Bible indicate that bread other than unleavened can represent Christ’s body?

Answer:

Yes. In John 6:32, 33, 35; 51-58 Jesus claims to be the true bread from heaven and the spiritual antitype of the manna from heaven. The emphasis placed upon this true manna is that it imparts everlasting life and does not merely satisfy a temporary need. There is no hint in the Bible that this manna was originally unleavened. Contrariwise, it bred worms and stank after a certain time, being made to last but one or two days. This would not be applicable to unleavened bread. Apart from its taste being like honey and its appear­ance like coriander seed, there is no account of any other qualities.

Jesus said he was the true bread that came from heaven and that bread divinely given was his flesh. His is a bread sweet to the taste and to be partaken in small quantities like cori­ander seed, and white in appearance like God’s righteousness, thus imparting life to the eater (Exodus 16:31; John 6:51).

The shewbread replaced weekly and con­sumed by the priests also signified Jesus. Apart from Josephus, who says it was unleavened, there is no Scriptural warrant or direction for its making. It merely signifies the bread of the presence. It could have been either leavened or unleavened, Some commentators prefer the former. Its significance appears to be the sustenance obtained from partaking of a Sav­iour in whom God the Father resides in cherubic manifestation.

When Jesus instituted his feast, he could have made his intention clear had he intended us to use unleavened bread every time we partake of the feast. Paul could also have joined him in making it clear, commanding us to use azumos (Greek for unleavened `Bread’). Instead, both use the common term artos (Greek for ‘loaf’) in which term the properties are undefined. When they broke bread, in Acts, and kept the feast, the term artos is also used.

Consistent with this, the heavenly manna and the bread of the presence are also referred to as artos, so that the record is indefinite in both precept and example. But it is most pointed in the applicability of the one loaf, thus preserving the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.

If, therefore, unleavened bread be preferred, how much more fitting is it to prepare a loaf especially for the occasion, which is commen­surate with the size of the ecclesia partaking. It would at least be in keeping with Scriptural -example and could never be an offence to anyone partaking.

Question:

In many prayers we hear the words, “For Christ’s sake” or the words, “We approach unto God through Jesus Christ and for his sake”. Some comments, please.

Answer:

“I write unto you little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” So wrote John to emphasise the fact of sins forgiven on account of or because of Jesus’ name. (Greek: dia to onoma autou). Jesus, or its Anglo-Hebrew equivalent, Joseph, derived from Yah and Shuah, means Yah is salvation. Thus, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

In prayer we recognise that our sins are forgiven on account of, or because of, Christ’s righteous life and sacrificial death; simultan­eously upholding the fact that God was in Christ performing the work of reconciliation. Consequently, “God, for Christ’s sake, hath forgiven” us (Greek: en Christo), i.e. God in Christ.

So, both on account of, and in Christ, are sins forgiven. Our very approach to God is on this basis, to secure covering with that divine cloak of righteousness or atonement (Hebrew: Caphar to cover). This is found in Christ alone. “Through him we both (Jew and Gen­tile) have access by one spirit unto the Father.” (Eph. 2:18) That is by means of, as well as via, Jesus, provided we are in that one spirit, the Lord being that spirit.

Paul unites these thoughts in 1 Cor. 6:11, “But ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God”. In the original “in”. and “by” are the same word, meaning that both the name of the, Lord Jesus and the spirit of God are at once the sphere wherein we are justified and the means of that justification.

Ephesians 5:20 exhorts us, to give praise and thanks in the name of our LORD JESUS ANOINTED. Here the whole work of God in a GLORIFIED Christ is expressed, and is efficacious insofar as we recognise this. Like­wise, our approach to God is acceptable and our sins forgiven inasmuch as we recognise our envelopment within the scope of Christ’s redemptive work, and that our sanctuary is overshadowed by the Spirit’s protecting wings. Similarly, every petition to the Father is acceptable only if we ask in Jesus’ name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son (John 14:13-14; John 16:26).

This is a privilege not enjoyed prior to Christ’s ascension when God placed him as head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22). Hitherto they had asked nothing in his name (John 16:24). Nor would Jesus need to peti­tion the Father concerning their welfare, as the Father himself loved them (John 16:26­27). So Jesus places the privilege in our hands to use the avenue of prayer. Then, if our clumsy words are ill-formed or inadequate, not praying as we ought; the fact that we petition through Jesus Christ the Spirit, fills these deficiencies or remoulds our stammering behests, in inconceivable and heavenly phrases far beyond the comprehension of our feeble minds (Rom. 8:26-27).

Such a lofty and resplendent privilege is ours alone, never enjoyed before Jesus ascended, nor by anyone who has no saviour, advocate, intercessor or representative in Jesus. He is our conqueror who overcame that very same source of evil from which our own temptations spring. Our champion has vanquished that enemy that’ held us captive, so it is only to him we can flee for refuge (Heb. 2:14-18). Any prayer to God in this age is out of order unless we recognise Christ as our advocate. In public prayers this should be always ex­pressed, as our prayers are then on behalf of those praying with us.