I was thinking and it seems a fair question to me. I agree that baptism should be proper and that membership into a local church should require baptism. So I put forth a scenario and ask how you would deal with it?

A person makes a profession of faith in your church, then you what? (a) immediately baptize them (b) put them through a rigorous new members class (c)wait till you have enough people to fill the baptismal pool.

Now, let’s say there is a communion service immediately following their profession. Unless you do (a) then are you not withholding the table from one who has openly professed Christ and you have not followed the precise pattern of Acts 2 (immediately baptizing)? I don’t know how you do things there. I am just asking per our conversation the other day.

“One is to be neither superstitious nor concerned regarding the kind of bread and wine. The bread and wine which Christ used were such as were available and in common use. It is credible that in light of the Passover Christ used unleavened bread; but that was incidental, for leavened bread was neither permitted to be used not was it available in Jersualem at that time [he means during the festival]. It is therefore not necessary to follow suit in this respect. It must be bread which one commonly uses for nourishment, thus to typify the spiritual nourishment of the soul. The wafers of the Papists and the Lutherans consist more of foam than of bread, and are not suitable for nourishing and strengthening. This is contrary to the institution of the Lord’s Supper; Christ had no wafers, but took bread, broke off fragments and gave them to the disciples. He did not give a wafer to anyone. As we may not be superstitious relative to the bread, so we must not be superstitious relative to the wine; that is. whether it be pure or diluted with water. The latter is customary in warm countries to prevent it from being overheated. However, it must be “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29). It is also immaterial whether one drinks from a cup or a glass; likewise the manner in which it is done. Common substances must be used without superstition”

I think that pretty much sums up where I stand on the issue.

Going back to Nathan’s orginal post, which we should probably all do! I would reccomend getting hold of Sam Waldron, quoted above, Thomas Watson – The Lord’s Supper (Puritan Paperback) and The Lord’s Supper by Thomas Dolittle (Sola Deo Gloria). These all more or less follow Nathan’s line on self-examination which I accord with.

Scott, still doing some research on your questions regarding permitting Presbyterians to commune. It’s not an easy one. Maybe you need a blog of your own and then we can all go there and hassle you instead of Nathan! (BTW Scott, because of how emails and text come out some times that’s meant to be humourous and not a sarcastic dig at you for bringing it up brother, it is a good question)

JP

You misunderstand me, probably because I wrote it wrong! Of course you are right, the unleavened bread HAD to be taken, and disobedience to the direct command of God to take it was clearly sin…what I meant was that the only REASON (maybe rationale would be a better word) given by to explain the symbolism of the Unleavened bread is that of NECESSARY HASTE, what I mean is I can’t think of anywhere where God told them Leaven was emblematic of sin (as far as I can see, please do put me right if there is further explanation somewhere else,).

Exodus 12:39 “39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they had brought out of Egypt; for it was not leavened, because they were driven out of Egypt and could not wait, nor had they prepared provisions for themselves.”

I didn’t mean you to think that I believe it was only circumstances that necessitated them using unleavened bread clearly God commanded it. Fingers working quicker than brain!

Leaven is interesting of course and seems to be connected with decay (and therefore sin) and espeically of the pervasive power of sin over mankind see e.g. Lev 3:11 where it was not permitted in any offerings made to God. Even here we’re not told as far as I can see why this should be the case.

It seems to me that the OC Unleavened Bread is prophetic of the sinlessness of Christ…the pervasiveness of sin being conquered in Him. Still I’m not sure we need to use it in the Lord’s Supper to fulfill the symbolism but, on the other hand I can think of no reason why we shouldn’t just use it.

JP

You said: Unleavened bread was [not] used in the Passover…because of any link with sin or iniquity per se but rather was used only because as they left Egypt they did not have time to wait for the bread to rise under the influence of the yeast, their leaving was to be with haste. So the symbolism of the Passover bread is not directly linked to sin or iniquity either.”

I strongly disagree with this statement. Unleavened bread was not an option. Leaven was always connected with sin in the Law. Consider these verses:

“Even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.” (Ex. 12:15)

“Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread” (Exodus 12:20)

“Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.” (Ex. 13:7)

We must also remember that the Lord’s supper IS the passover. That’s why Christ broke bread on the Day of the Passover.

Good stuff guys ! These comments have caused me to go to Scripture and really search. We have been using red wine for about a year and the bread and not the little” Whatever you call it”. Not to beat this horse in the ground but I do want further comments with you guys on this because I take these questions serious and so did our early Baptist brothers such as Kiffin(Sober Discourse and Right to Church Communion), Gill, Brine, and early Southern Baptist. Here is my question realating to the Supper concerning our Padeobaptist brothers:

1. As Baptists do we believe Padeobaptism is Scriptural Baptism ? My answer is NO !

2. What two things does Acts 2:41 say happened before these new converts were added to that church ? My answer is Conversion and Baptism. In other words Baptism puts us into the local” Visible ” church. Notice in Acts 2 that the Supper came behind baptism.

3. Work with me on this question: If a person received the Word( Conversion) and was sprinkled upon that Profession of Faith would the early disciples have allowed them to come into the local ” Visible” church ? My answer is NO. Why because sprinkling before or after conversion is not baptism.

4. Is the Lord’s Supper a local ” Visible” church ordinance ? My answer is yes. In otherwords the universal church does not gather all togther at one time, no officers to serve it and I could go on and on….. Only the local” Visible” church is to baptize and serve the Supper ? My answer is yes.

5. How are the unbaptized ever put in a visible church ? Are the unbaptized walking disorderly ? My answer is yes. 2 Thess 3:6 says we are to withdraw from them and thats why Baptists don’t put them into local “Visible Church” membership and therefore they are not to take the Supper.

6. Can anyone show me in Scripture where any unbaptized person ever took the Supper ? My answer is all that took it were baptized ! Were the disciples baptized before they took the Supper with Jesus ? Yes !

Have been doing some thinking on the unleavened bread issue.

We need to be careful that we don’t stretch things beyond where they should go and perhaps enter into a little allegorical interpretation. Don’t get me wrong though, there can be little doubt that Christ did use red wine and unleavened bread in the Upper Room, however none of the Apostles elaborate, nor does Christ himself elaborate on the details. The simple terms of wine and bread are used without further qualification. There are no interpretative gymnastics needed to arrive at the fact that if we are bound to follow the exact details of Christ’s institution that we should have red wine, probably one cup, and one lump of unleavened bread. However The key to the supper is the symbolism however and since there are no specific instructions in Scripture if we maintain the symbolism then there can be some flexibility in the actual elements. The elements are clear are unmistakable, wine and bread, but what do they symbolise?

The bread was most likely unleavened but Christ does not stipulate, nor do any of the Apostles that this must be the case. The bread represents the body of Christ, now in our mind we can think of many ways in which it represents Christ’s body, but the plain words Christ says are, “This is my body broken for you”. I don’t think the symbol is meant to represent anything else, such as sin. The bread represents the body of Christ who is the “staple”, only food whereby we receive eternal life, just as bread is the “staple” or was, of physical life. That seems to be to the symbolism, without reference at all to sinlessness or sinfulness in either Christ or us who partake of it.

It is possible that the emblems could have dual or multiple symbolisms attached to them but it is unlikely, such an approach would be more akin to allegorical interpretation than I would be comfortable with.

We also need to consider why Unleavened bread was used in the Passover, again this was not so far as I can detect because of any link with sin or iniquity per se but rather, (see Exodus 12:34-39) unleavened bread was used only because as they left Egypt they did not have time to wait for the bread to rise under the influence of the yeast, their leaving was to be with haste. So the symbolism of the Passover bread is not directly linked to sin or iniquity either.

One final point, leaven is not uniformly used in the NT with connotations of sin and iniquity, certainly it is used that way, but note for example Matt 13:33 which compares the kingdom of God to leaven…..a mysterious, powerful, unstoppable, spreading force for good shall we say .

Interested to hear your thoughts.

JP

I think you raise an interesting question. This verse seems to indicate that the leaven was symbolic for evil deeds:

Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. – 1 Cor 5

Again I’m not sure why we don’t just use unleavened bread as you say this would seem to fit best with what actually took place in the upper room. That said I wouldn’t personally get too hung up as long as the symbolism is maintained (see above). Does anybody know if any of the Reformers or Church Fathers wrote on the subject of the wine and bread? I would be interested to know when the changes from normal wine and unleavened bread took place and if there are any sensible reasons given.

JP

Are you guys talking about a regular loaf of bread? Should we not use unleavened bread. After all, this is what the Jews ate for the passover (Lord’s Supper is the NT passover) , and, besides, leaven is undoubtedly a picture of sin (Christ bore our sin, but nevertheless, was sinless).