"Should unleavened bread be used in the remembrance of the Lord in death? Was it not unleavened bread that the Lord used when He instituted His supper?"
ANSWER: It seems quite evident that the Lord Jesus used unleavened bread on that "night in which He was betrayed," for it was at the Passover; and in Exod. 12 the Israelites were told to eat the Passover lamb with "unleavened bread." The day following began the feast of unleavened bread which was to last seven days, during which time leaven was not even to be in their houses. Some people, therefore, have concluded that only unleavened bread should be used by Christians in keeping the Lord's supper. Such a conclusion, however, is a mistake; it is an attempt to carry over the actuality of the type, rather than its typical significance, into Christianity.
Leaven was forbidden in any offering made by fire to the Lord (Lev. 2:11). Inasmuch as it typifies the working of evil, it could not be offered in a sacrifice which spoke of Christ. There were two occasions where leavened bread was used, and both of these tend to emphasize this same truth. In the peace offering the offerer was to present "leavened bread" besides unleavened cakes and wafers (Lev. 7:12, 13), but this offering spoke of communion or worship, and the leavened bread shows that sin was present in the offerer, who later ate the bread.
In Lev. 23 leaven is also found in the two loaves that typify the Church as formed on the day of Pentecost; here again it is evil as found in the Church on earth. All this is conclusive proof of the typical significance of leaven.
When we come to the New Testament we always find the same meaning involved in the use of the word "leaven." The leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, and the disciples were to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (hypocrisy) and of the Sadducees (infidelity). The corruptions of Herod, who was a proselyte to Judaism, were also spoken of as leaven, "the leaven of Herod." (Luke 12:1; Matt. 16:6, 11, 12; Mark 8:15.) Then in Matt. 13 in the parables of the "kingdom of heaven"—the sphere of profession on earth—there was the woman who hid leaven in three measures of meal "till the whole was leavened." This is the secret working of evil doctrine which has well-nigh permeated the whole lump of Christendom. Its progress was to be steady, and eventually embrace the whole of profession. It was not to be checked nor eradicated by men.
In the Church proper the case was different; evil workers were to be put out, for "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5). The man who was guilty of immorality was to be excluded, for before God the assembly was unleavened. The Apostle, by the Spirit of God, then brings in the practical application of the feast of unleavened bread. If the Israelites were to put away leaven for seven days (a picture of a complete cycle of time), so were the Christians to keep that feast in its spiritual application by keeping free from evil. "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast [feast of unleavened bread seven days, or the whole of our lifetime on earth], not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." vv. 7, 8.
In Gal. 5:9 the evil doctrine which was at work among the churches in that province was also referred to as leaven, and the same word is given: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." This is indeed salutary, for some Christians admit that moral evil would contaminate the whole body of Christians, and yet allow evil doctrine to work without expulsion. The two evils are classed in the same category—leaven that defiles all.
In no single instance is the Christian enjoined from using material leaven; such injunction would bring him back under the Mosaic economy. He is to keep himself free from that which leaven typified; that is sin; but the shadows in the ceremonies of the past age are not for him to observe. He may use leaven or not as his taste may dictate. There is no wrong in his use of leaven- yeast. The same thing is true of many outward observances obligatory to the Jews; they have no place in Christianity.
Nowhere is it mentioned whether or not the loaf the Lord Jesus used in instituting His supper was leavened or unleavened. In Christianity it is immaterial; the great point is that it was a loaf of bread, and that that loaf unbroken bespoke the Lord's body before it was offered; and when it was broken it symbolized His body given unto death for us. To bring in anything as to leaven is to miss the mind of the Spirit, and to get souls occupied with something else rather than the Lord Jesus in death. It is quite natural that the natural man would be occupied with natural things—bread and wine—but may we be so occupied with Himself that we lose sight of mere nature and see "Jesus only." It is hard for nature to get above itself, like the woman of Samaria; she could not understand what the Lord spoke about for she could not get beyond the actual well, water, and waterpot.
The same type of question has often been raised about the "fruit of the vine" used in the Lord's supper, whether it was fermented wine or unfermented grape juice. How gracious of the Lord that neither the one nor the other is insisted upon; He merely said "the fruit of the vine." No doubt it was fermented wine that He used on that occasion, and certainly the Corinthians used wine, for some became intoxicated when they joined their "love feasts" with the Lord's supper; and they had to be rebuked (1 Cor. 11). In those days there was no way of preserving unfermented grape juice; it was not thought of. Doubtless wine was used.
But surely the Spirit-taught Christian should be able to remember the Lord in death with either leavened or unleavened bread, wine or unfermented grape juice; and Scripture leaves it without comment or instruction. Certainly if only unleavened bread were available it should not distract any heart from the purpose of remembering the Lord in death, nor should the availability of grape juice instead of wine change our one thought as to the meaning to us of "the cup." It is the "loaf" and the "cup" that bring the Lord before our souls, not the fermentation or the lack of it in either case.
We might add a few more words, as to a subject closely akin to this one; that is, the Lord and His disciples were in an upper room. Here again nature would get occupied with the location of the room, rather than with "the Lord's death." Perhaps a significance can be taken from the upper room, that it was apart from the world, and so should our remembrance of Him in death be; but this could be true in a cave below the surface of the earth, or on any floor of a building above it. Let us not interpose anything between our souls and the all absorbing object for which we come together—"This do in remembrance of ME."
God in His grace has left no instruction in His Word on some points. Not one word is given as to what hour of the day we should thus remember Him. Circumstances in certain countries might make afternoon or evening the only time allowed, or might preclude the use of wine or of leavened bread (or the reverse); but all this should in no way affect the simple remembrance of "the Lord's death till He come." May we give more attention to coming self-judged into His presence, so that there may be no hindrance to the discerning of the Lord's body (1 Cor. 11:28, 29) and the leading of the Holy Spirit of God. These are things that should concern us, not the things of nature.