Unleavened bread was a compulsory feature in two of Israel’s national orders. The first was the passover, and the second was the regular institution of the sacrifices.
The passover was the memorial of the dramatic night in Egypt when the Angel of Death passed over the dwellings of Israel, and so terrified the Egyptians that Israel was driven out into the wilderness. The Paschal lamb was always eaten with unleavened bread and the memorial was strictly observed throughout all their generations (Ex 12:14)). Only the circumcised were permitted to partake. Strangers and foreigners were excluded (Ex 12:43:47). There were no ritual proscriptions concerning “clean” and “unclean”. It was compulsory upon the whole nation.
The use of unleavened bread at this feast had no bearing upon sin or sacrifice in the ordinary sense. The only reason given for its use was the element of haste in their departure from Egypt : it was the bread of affliction ; they had short time to prepare for their escape from bondage ; they were pushed out of the land, and their kneading troughs were wrapped up in their baggage (Deut 16:3).
The sacrifices of the sanctuary were ordained to be offered with “meat” or meal offerings. They were to be of fine flour mingled with oil, and presented cooked. They were to contain no leaven, for it was specified that no burnt offering was to be presented with leaven—neither, for that matter, was it to contain honey (Lev 2:4-11)). On the other hand, thank offerings were to be partly leavened and partly unleavened (Lev 7:11; 23:17).
In neither of these two main connections is there anything to suggest that leaven was excluded for other than practical considerations. In the case of the passover the exigencies of a desert journey required it, and in the case of the sacrifices two factors are mentioned in the context which supply the only hint we have of the reason for the exclusion, namely that a basket of unleavened cakes had to be kept alongside the altar from which to add .”meat offerings” to the sacrifices, and, furthermore, that what was left over of these offerings was for the use of the priests. From these it can be inferred that convenience and a longer shelf-life were the practical considerations. We are not told. But, since all inferences are equally unreliable unsupported by definite instruction, they are best ignored.
It is commonly assumed that the reason for the exclusion of leaven lies in the identification of leaven with sin, but a moment’s thought will show that this takes us into doubtful ground. Jesus, truly, used leaven figuratively for the doctrines of the Pharisees, (Matt 16:6,12) and Paul on two occasions, to the Galatians and the Corinthians, issued the warning that “a little leaven leaveneth the lump”(1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9). But, as against this, we have Jesus using the simile in connection with the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt 13:33).
Yeast is a living organism, and, under favourable conditions of moisture and temperature, it grows rapidly and forms minute gas bubbles, which expand in the oven and lighten the bread. It lives and grows upon the flour, and this self-propagating character makes it similar to the rapid growth of unrestrained evil influences. But by the same figure of speech this self-propagating power is characteristic of the energy inherent in the Kingdom of Heaven. So that it can rightly be used of good as well as of evil. The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation.
Paul, in warning that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, carries the figure of speech beyond the simple analogy of the spread of evil, extending it from the primary to a secondary application. He introduces the aspect of passover into his warning. It was from Philippi that he wrote to the Corinthians, and here he had spent the days of unleavened bread while he was on his journey up to Jerusalem for the observance of Pentecost (cp Acts 20:6).
He admonished them that “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”, thus creating a distinction between the literal national Passover celebration of the Jews and the more spiritual observance of the memorial of Christ. Speaking figuratively, he tells them to purge out the old leaven of malice and wickedness which he found working in their midst, because of their easy tolerance of incestuous practices, and instead to “keep the feast with the unleaven of sincerity and truth”. That is, they were to eliminate this evil and be a new lump, even as they were “unleavened”. Note that the unleaven extends figuratively beyond bread to people.
Moreover, it needs to be observed that Paul, in this connection, is not speaking of the memorial to Christ—as he does particularly in the eleventh chapter—but of the unleavened state of ecclesial associations in Christ as a whole.
It was at passover, and with unleavened bread, that Jesus instituted the memorial sacrament, the breaking of bread. The new memorial was not to perpetuate the Jewish passover and its ceremonials, but to initiate a new memory of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. In instituting the memorial he lifts the conception of it right above physical facts to the realisation of spiritual features. “This is my body” he said. And previously he had instructed them: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you.” Clearly the eating is figurative and signifies partaking of his redeeming virtues and the heavenly qualities of his kingdom: “I am the bread of life.” So that when he said, “This is my body”, was he thinking of “bread” and of “unleaven”, or of food and sustenance for eternal life ? “This do” he said. Do what? “Eat this in remembrance of me.”
The emphasis is on the eating, not on the bread. Paul adds the thought, “You do show the Lord’s death until he comes”.
Surely he raises the memorial above the physical facts of a national remembrance to the spiritual level of a true participation in fellowship with him, in which physical remembrances take second place to a much higher conception.
These thoughts are not intended to cover the whole ground of the use of bread in the memorial meeting week by week, but to set up a train of cogitations which will help in a better estimation of the “new covenant” which was established by Christ in our favour.
If some wish to use unleavened bread as their memorial emblem, because they find some symbol of Christ’s purity in it, let it be as a preference rather than as an obligation—because there is no specific command, nor any clear inference, to require it. And if others like to use ordinary bread, let it be with gracious allowance for the preference of the some.
And let all remember that the real significance of the memorial lies in true remembrance—with obedience, and not in the exaltation of material symbols.
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren