Does a church have to use unleavened bread for communion?

Some too have urged that since leaven was to be put away from the houses at the feast of the Passover, therefore the Lord must have used unleavened bread, and therefore we must do so. However, in each case where we read of the Lord's taking bread to institute His supper, the word for bread is not "azumos," the Greek word for unleavened bread, but "artos," the common word for bread, which infers bread of any kind. The emphasis is not at all on the kind of bread, and therefore to make a regulation of this is mere legality.

Ques.—Was the bread used at the Lord's Supper leavened or not? In 1 Cor.10:16, “the bread which we break” is the communion of the Body of Christ. As there was no evil in Him, could that which speaks of evil be used in the symbol?

Ans.—It is very likely that, the Lord's Supper being instituted at the close of the Passover feast, where no leavened bread was allowed, our Lord used that which was at hand, the unleavened bread of the Passover. We must remember however, that for us, being no longer under Judaism, the significance of literal leaven in our daily use is entirely of the past. The point to note is that bread was used—the ordinary food of man. Our blessed Lord gave up His body unto death in order that He might be the food of His people. In taking, at the Lord's Table, that which ordinarily is our food, we do not raise the question at all whether it is leavened or unleavened. It is Christ Himself whom we remember and who is typified in the bread which we break.

The Lord's Supper. — From the celebration of the paschal supper Luke proceeds to tell Theophilus of the institution of the Lord's Supper. This, we learn from his gospel, was quite distinct from the other, though instituted at the same table. It was also something quite new, and has a feature peculiar to itself. No service is there like it, for it is wholly eucharistic. Now the Lord was as the host. It was His supper, and the disciples were the guests seated at His table. Of His supper, of course, He did not partake. Of the passover He did. Then He was one of Israel commemorating in the appointed way the national deliverance from judgment in Egypt. At the supper He was the Dispenser to His disciples of that which was to be the memorial of His death. The two were very different in object and in character. At the passover there was remembered the goodness of Jehovah towards Israel; at the Lord's Supper there was to be before the mind the death of the Lord Jesus. To be eaten with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, was the Divine command about the former (Deut. 16:3); thanksgiving, and that only, characterised the latter. The former was wholly retrospective; celebrating the latter, we look back and look forward, for till He come, as 1 Cor. 11:26 states, we show the Lord's death who died for us, and eat of His supper in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19).

As they did eat (Mark 14:22) the Lord "took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is My body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19). He took bread, for He was inaugurating what was quite new; and He gave thanks. What a moment that must have been when He was heard giving thanks in view of His death upon the cross! Thanksgiving, not prayer, occupied Him at that time. How speaking is this to us! He knew — and His act of giving thanks showed it — that nothing could be added to enhance the efficacy of His atoning death, and nothing would be lacking that a sinner needs of sacrifice when that death should have taken place. The sufficiency and the abiding efficacy of His sacrifice His thanksgiving abundantly attests. His body given for us! The hour for that was at hand. And great though His sufferings would be — and who knows what they were but Himself? — His heart overflowed in thanksgiving as He surveyed in anticipation the rich and far-reaching results of His death. But instituting the supper for His own disciples, He concentrated their thoughts at the table on the benefits they would receive. "My body which is given for you." A substitute indeed! Of the broken bread they were to eat, the symbol of His body given for them, then in anticipation, afterward in commemoration.

The bread was to be unleavened; Leaven is always in Scripture typical of evil. We read, “Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:8).

Then Christ is spoken of as "our Passover... sacrificed for us." Leaven was utterly forbidden in the Passover feast (Ex. 12:8). For in the sacrifice of Christ sin is totally judged; and in keeping the feast that is a memorial of that blessed sacrifice, we are certainly called upon to do so consistently with the blessedness of the sacrifice itself. Of course, it is the Lord's supper that is such a memorial feast, and "the old leaven of malice and wickedness" must be fully judged and refused as we are privileged to remember the sufferings of our Lord. "The unleavened of sincerity and truth" is only right and consistent here, and the assembly must be exercised to see that this is practiced. It is the Lord's supper, and He certainly serves no contaminated food; but it is a feast that can give purest delight to the partakers, though our prime object there is to give Him delight.

The "unleavened bread," then, suggests moral fitness in the believer, and supposes self-judgment. An Israelite ate the Passover, and every believer may partake of the Supper; but leaven was to be excluded by the one, and every impurity of mind and life is to be judged by the other.

The "unleavened bread," then, suggests moral fitness in the believer, and supposes self-judgment. An Israelite ate the Passover, and every believer may partake of the Supper; but leaven was to be excluded by the one, and every impurity of mind and life is to be judged by the other.

The Passover feast was to continue for seven days, during which no leavened bread was to be eaten, for leaven speaks of sin which has been totally judged in the cross. This seven day observance was intended to keep Israel reminded all their life of the day of their deliverance from Egypt (v.3), just as the Lord's supper is a reminder of the Lord's death by which He has delivered believers from their former bondage to sin.

It was this "unleavened bread," connected with the supper of the Old Testament, which the Lord took, to show to His apostles its new meaning, saying: "This is my body, which is given for you." But one chief element had to be added. It was the cup containing the wine. The eating of the roast lamb supposed the shedding of the blood of the Lamb, without which the lamb could not have been eaten. The Lord now takes the cup of the new covenant. At the institution of the supper in Luke 22, the "cup" appears twice; the first time (vers. 17, 18) in connection with Israel's blessing in the millennial kingdom, when they will dwell every one under his vine and his fig tree, when the Lord will say to them: "Eat, O friends, drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved" (Song of Solomon 5:1).

This feast does not in any way refer to the Lord's Supper, but is an allusion to the feast of unleavened bread, which began with the passover, and was kept up for seven days. It was specially marked by the entire putting away of all leaven. Their bread, their food, was to be entirely free of it; nor was it to be found in any of their houses.