You asked it

Leavened or Unleavened Bread

Why do we not use unleavened bread at the Memorial Service? R 5, Canada

The New Testament word for un­leavened bread is azumos, which is used nine tunes and is always trans­lated “unleavened bread” m the KJV The word for ordinary “leavened bread” is artos, which occurs 95 times, being translated “bread” 72 tunes and “loaf’ the balance.

The word for leavened bread is used when “Jesus took bread, and blessed” in all three accounts of the inauguration of the Memorial Service (Matt 26 26, Mk 14 22, Lk 2219) This must have been quite deliberate as the last supper was held on “the first day of unleavened bread” (Mk 14 12) Artos (leavened bread) is also used in I Cor 10 16 (“the bread which we break”) and I Cor 11 23,26-28 (“as often as ye eat this bread “) when Paul refers to the breaking of bread.

Because of these precedents, most meetings use leavened bread.

This may seem unusual, especially m light of I Corinthians 5 8 which speaks of leaven as representing “malice and wickedness” in contrast to “the unleavened bread (note that ‘bread’ is not in the Greek text) of sincerity and truth” The apparent incongruity is removed, however, when we consider the significance of “breaking” the bread during the Me­morial Service Since not a bone of Christ’s body was broken, “breaking” the bread does not reflect what was physically done to Christ, what it does speak to is the breaking of sin in the body of Christ This happened in at least three ways.

  1. “Malice and wickedness” were de­feated by Jesus, he never let them control him in spite of the brutal treatment he received.
  2. The rebellious spirit in man, which leads to sin against God, was completely broken by Jesus as he obediently humbled himself to the death of the cross (Phil 2 8).
  3. Human nature, which invariably leads to transgression, hung broken, dead on the cross to be replaced with the divine nature upon Jesus’ resurrection.

Thus when we “break” the bread we celebrate the destruction of sin and the abolition of death by God through our Savior Jesus Christ, for God’s own purpose and grace “is now made manifest by the appearing of our Sav­ior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and im­mortality to light through the gospel” (II Tim 19-10)

Christ’s Offering for Sin Nature

In Hebrews 7 27, the Spirit states the Levitical high priest offered daily sacrifices for two reasons 1) the sins of the people and 2) his own sins If it be agreed this verse applies to Jesus Christ, we can easily understand the parallel with I) [that Christ offered for the sins of the people] How do you explain the parallel with 2) un­less you believe Jesus offered for his sin-nature? E W F , (Unamended) Canada.

This question alludes to an ex­change in “Letters to the Editor,” pg 498-500, 12/96.

While we do not feel the phrase “sinful nature” is correct, we have no objection to the phrase “sinful-nature ” And we agree with the idea that the death of Christ was occasioned by human nature (which he fully shared) as well as our sins.

The fact Christ offered to redeem himself from sin nature is alluded to five times in Hebrews, far more than in any other book (Heb 5 1-9, 727 offered for himself, 9 12 obtained personal redemption through his own blood, 9 23 purified by his own sac­rifice, 13 20 raised through the blood of the everlasting covenant) Yet even here we must maintain our balance, for m this same book the fact Christ offered for us, specifically for our committed transgressions, is referred to 12 times (e g 1 3 “when he had by himself purged our sins,” 2 9 “He by the grace of God should taste death for every man” also 2 15, 5 9, 7 25,27,9 14,15,28, 10 10,12,17-19, 13 12) The wondrous grace of God lies m what He offers us sinners.

This area of discussion has frequently led to hurtful argument m our community This should not be, for we all agree that

  1. Jesus Christ originated with his conception by the Holy Spirit acting on the virgin Mary, he did not personally pre-exist m any form (Matt 1 20, Luke 1 31,35)
  2. Jesus Christ came m the flesh, i e he was of the same nature as ourselves (I John 4 2-3, H Jn 7)
  3. Jesus was tempted by the natural will of his flesh and of his mind with the possibility of sinning at any time, just as we are, yet he never sinned (Heb 4 15, James 113-15)
  4. There is no fallen angel devil, sins come from within human hearts as we respond to the de­sires of our flesh and our mind (Mk 7 21, Gal 5 19-21)
  5. Unaided by God, we are utterly without hope having no saving light within us (Rom 7 18, Eph 2 3,12)

On these points we all agree and they set us apart, very far apart, from every other group Isn’t that enough? With this level of agreement, why would we ever suggest another brother is not sound m belief regard­ing the nature of man or the nature of Christ simply because he doesn’t use the same coined phrases as ourselves’?

Refined discussion on these doc­trines in the light of specific passages is interesting It will only be edifying, however, if we continually keep m mind our basic agreement on the vital principles of the gospel.