The Biblical and Theological Debate: Leavened vs Unleavened Bread in Christian Communion

Christianity has a rich and diverse tradition, with various denominations and sects holding different views on theuse of leavened versus unleavened bread during communion. While some see it as a minor difference, others perceive it as a significant theological and ritualistic debate. This discussion revolves around the origins of the practice, the theological symbolism, and the historical context.

Biblical Origins and Theological Interpretations

The origin of the controversy can be traced back to the Last Supper narrative in the Bible, where Jesus used unleavened bread. The instructions in the New Testament state, 'do THIS in memory of me' (Luke 22:19), referring to the use of unleavened bread. However, some groups, particularly Orthodox churches, interpret the Last Supper as occurring the night before Passover rather than being part of the Passover Seder itself.

Historical Context: Orthodox Churches

Orthodox churches, including Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some sects within the Eastern Catholic Church, use leavened bread for communion. This practice is rooted in the belief that the Last Supper occurred the night before Passover, on the Eve of Passover. They use the Greek word 'artos' for bread, which is not restricted to unleavened bread, but implies any type of bread. This interpretation is also supported by the symbol of leaven in the scriptures, which is frequently considered to be a symbol of sin (1 Corinthians 5:6-8).

Protestant Perspectives

Protestant churches, stemming from the Reformation, tend to use unleavened bread, aligning with the tradition that the Last Supper was part of the Passover meal. The Greek word 'azumaos' is used in the New Testament, which specifically refers to unleavened bread. This choice is seen as aligning directly with the literal interpretation of Jesus' words: 'do this in remembrance of me' (1 Corinthians 11:24). Some Protestant denominations interpret these words to mean that only unleavened bread should be used.

Theological Implications and Controversies

The debate over leavened versus unleavened bread extends beyond the literal meaning of Jesus' words. The Bible itself contains numerous references to leaven as a symbol of sin and corruption (1 Corinthians 5:6-8) and as a symbol of righteousness and truth (1 Corinthians 5:7-8, 10-13). This dual symbolism adds layers of meaning to the use of bread during communion, emphasizing the importance of purity and sincerity in worship.

Symbolic Significance

The choice of bread is not merely a matter of ritual but also a theological statement. Leavened bread is often seen as a symbol of sin and corruption, reflecting the need for spiritual purification and renewal. Unleavened bread, on the other hand, represents sinlessness and truth, aligning with the biblical commands to purify oneself (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

Practical Considerations

While the theological implications are significant, practical factors also play a role in the choice of bread. For example, leavened bread is more readily available and affordable. Its use can also be seen as a way to connect with local customs and traditions, rather than adopting a rigid interpretation.

Conclusion

The debate over leavened versus unleavened bread in Christian communion is rooted in a deep reservoir of theological and historical traditions. While some see it as a minor issue, others perceive it as a significant theological and ritualistic difference. Understanding the biblical references and varying interpretations can offer insight into this contentious yet fascinating issue. Ultimately, what matters most is the spiritual intention behind the practice, as Paul himself wrote, 'let us keep the feast with sincerity and truth' (1 Corinthians 5:8).