I n this article I propose that leaven is most appropriate for Passover because the context in which the New Testament Passover occurs naturally demonstrates that to be the case. In the New Testament there is a deviation from what was the norm for ancient Passover in terms of the timing as well as the instruments. All of the disciples demonstrate and awareness of the distinction between leavened bread and unleavened bread and yet chose to speak of leavened bread. There is no historical state of affairs that impose unleavened bread on the ceremony. Far from that the symbols of the Lord's Supper are best suited to leavened bread. The symbolic meaning of unleavened bread given in the book of Exodus, which is haste, has no place in the events of the Lords Supper. The new meaning given to bread demonstrates a sharp break from the past. I outline that in the article Passover and the Night to Be Much Observed. This in in contrast to the meaning in the Old Testament Passover with the Old symbols. He was bursting with the leaven of God's Kingdom which is God's love but He did not have any leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees to purge out. He is the right leaven that replaces the one purged out and that is the symbolism that God is stressing. That is how I perceive that it fits into the Pattern of Life given by God.

Having said that, the reasons normally given for leavened or unleavened bread are not biblically justifiable. I want to examine the pros and cons for using leavened or unleavened bread. Passover is not about unleavened bread. There is a separate feast for that. Passover is about why we escape death.

The Context Does Not Require Unleavened Bread

In approaching the study of the Bible, two of the principles I use are:

• God is not trying to trick anybody
  
• A word should be translated as its commonly accepted interpretation unless there is a specific qualification in the context or unless it clearly violates God's instructions.

In all of the biblical languages there is a separate word for unleavened bread. By that I mean that it is not like English where we join two words (unleavened and bread) but they have completely different words for the two i.e. bread in general and unleavened bread. For the purpose of what I am putting forward I will initially focus on the New Testament. In Greek bread is artos or arton and unleavened bread is azumos or azumois.

The apostles did not use the word for unleavened bread

Let us see if the apostles knew the difference

Matthew knew the difference and he specified ordinary bread at the Lord's Supper.

Mark knew the difference

Luke knew the difference

Notice that the same bread is used when they were eating normally

John does not record the Last Supper and never uses the word unleavened but he uses the term for bread.

In every case the words for bread and for unleavened bread are the same as given above.

Paul for sure knew the difference

It was not an unleavened bread day

Some say that by using bread instead of unleavened bread it would be understood that they actually meant unleavened bread. Why would we? The Days of Unleavened bread had not yet started. God instructs us to eat unleavened bread seven days not eight.

He even tells us when to put the leaven out.

The Hebrews, and in particular the disciples would have known this and practised it for all their lives. They knew that it was seven days and that those seven days had not yet begun, so how do we explain Matthew, Mark and Luke apparently saying that the day of the Lord's Supper was during the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

It seems to have been a commonly used form of referring to the entire period or season. We know from several scriptures presented in the article on the Pharisees and the Sadducees that it was undeniably the preparation day, i.e. the day before Unleavened Bread started. The first day of unleavened bread is a Sabbath and so the day before is its preparation day. Some acknowledge the clear evidence that it was the Preparation but they insist that it was the Preparation for a regular weekly Sabbath and hence conclude that Christ was crucified on a Friday. The same article mentioned above shows that conclusion to be indefensible. God specifically defines the feast of Unleavened bread as seven days and the preparation day was not included.

There was no reason to use unleavened bread so why would we be expected to assume that they used it? It was not desirable especially for a special occasion. The preparation was the day that they used to put the leaven out so they had not put it out yet. Why didn't it cross anybody's mind to clarify the matter if there was something to clarify? Why would God leave something so important open to some speculative assumption rather than just expect that we would accept what is natural?

It was not a Seder

The Lord's Supper was not a Seder. One of the arguments in favour of using unleavened bread is that Josephus and Philo state that Unleavened Bread was used at the time for the Jewish Passover meal. The problem is that this was not a recognised Passover meal according to Jewish custom.

The traditional Passover meal is called a Seder. For someone as high profile as Christ there is no way that He could distort the practice without attracting the attention of the Pharisees and Sadducees. One major requirement was a lamb and there is no evidence that there was one and it certainly did not feature in the symbols given by Christ. There are two other key points that demonstrate that it was not a Seder. First the Seder required significant preparation.

Jews follow this instruction to the letter. There is no evidence that these preparations were completed. There is no evidence that Christ gave the proprietor any instructions other that to prepare the room for an ordinary meal. The normal proprietor of an establishment would be expecting to use the preparation day for putting out leaven. Notice that this is describing a whole Jewish day which began at sunset, not midnight. On this day they were to put leaven out of their houses (v15) and that is what they did. This was not a five minute job but a careful search. The proprietor would have been expecting to complete this during the coming daylight hours. The other key point is that he would have to be instructed to provide unleavened bread at what was obviously a celebration. No leavened bread could be used at the Seder. He acted according to normal expectations as is demonstrated by 1 Corinthians 11:23 where ordinary bread was used at the Lord's Supper.

Some people claim that the blessing of the bread and wine demonstrates that it was a Seder but the scripture clearly shows that this occurred after the meal and not during it. The same is true for the sop. With the Seder the wine, unleavened bread and bitter herbs are part of the meal.

Did they use unleavened bread?

If they did use unleavened bread for some reason it is important to understand that it could not be not for the reasons that are usually presented. The reason usually given is because of the command in Exodus (Exodus 23:18, Exodus 34:25) which said that leavened bread could not be used when offering blood at Passover. This does not really clarify the issue for us in the New Testament because the New Testament Passover - which is the same thing as The Lord's Supper - has no offerings. We do not offer anything at Passover and the scriptures in Exodus refer to offer the blood. The symbolic blood at Passover today is not offered. The new testament Passover ceremony is not done as compensation for anything like the old testament lamb was. Hebrews tells us that that those sacrifices could not really compensate for anything and our offering was done once and for all in Christ (Hebrews 9:27-28, 10:8-11). Nevertheless we have to check the whole of scripture and see what God says.

All of these relate to making an offering. Like I would have said earlier, I prefer to err on the side of caution because what is not done of faith is sin. Unleavened bread is bread too so if in doubt go with that, but any attempt to introduce a sacrifice into the New Testament Passover is sacrilege. Having said that, if I was with a group using unleavened bread I would stick with unleavened bread for conscience sake until I was certain and that it would not seriously damage the faith of anyone.

The argument for Unleavened Bread

God plainly states in Exodus, as was mentioned before, that unleavened bread must be used in the Old Testament with the Passover offering; If we eliminate this e.g. by showing that it is not relevant in the New Testament, then all of the proofs for unleavened bread can be defeated. It is easily set aside if we accept that the New Testament celebration is not an offering, has no blood and is not the Seder, which still actually exists, and the Pharisees and Sadducees at that time kept it after Christ celebrated Passover. The arguments used in favour of unleavened bread include the following:

1. The showbread was unleavened.

2. The Septuagint or LXX is to be the standard used for translation and the Septuagint uses artos in Leviticus 24:5-6 showing that one of its accepted meanings was unleavened bread.

3. All offerings used Unleavened Bread. Since the Lord's Supper relates to an offering therefore this ceremony used unleavened bread.

4. Josephus and Philo state that Unleavened Bread was used at the time for the Passover meal

5. You could easily break unleavened bread (soft matzah) and dip it in a sop. It is not a problem

6. The word used for bread could include unleavened bread

I go through these arguments to show that they cannot be proven, but even if they could it would not detract from the new instruments and symbols given by Christ.

The basket of Unleavened bread

Before we begin to examine the evidence related to each point I want to deal with a matter that can be distracting. In the Bible we read of a basket of unleavened bread that was before the Lord. It is used as the basis for demonstrating that the Shewbread was unleavened. Was this the Shewbread? The first instance is Exodus 29.

On the surface this resembles the Shewbread but let us dig a bit deeper. Was the showbread in a basket or on a table? It was on a table. Next look at verse 1 of the same chapter.

This is the introduction of the chapter. It is talking about preparing priests to minister before God. Now verse 2.

This is where the basket of bread came from. It was part of the ceremony which takes up this chapter. The second instance is in Leviticus 8. It is once again talking about the same ceremony as is established by verse 2.

The next instance is talking about the Nazarite Vow. It is found in Numbers 6 and again the context is established in the first two verses.

These are two instances of becoming a person who acts on behalf of God and in both cases the unleavened bread indicates that they have renounced the pleasures of this world to focus on God.

The matter of the showbread (or shewbread)

I want to continue to focus attention on the Old Testament for a bit longer to examine the case for leaven. The Hebrew word used for unleavened bread is matzos or mtzuth. We see it used as early as Genesis 19:3 where Lot prepared a hurried meal for the visitor just before He went to Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is also found several places in Exodus 12 in recording the events of the Passover. The word is still used up to this day. There is another word for bread in use since Genesis 3:19 where God upbraided Adam.

The verse and chapter numbers are reversed; perhaps this is telling us something. This lchm is the common word for bread which would expectedly be leavened.

We read in Leviticus 24:5-9 (KJV) And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. ⁶ And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD. ⁷ And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread [lchm] for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. ⁸ Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. ⁹ And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.

You will notice that in verse 7 I have inserted the Hebrew word used there for bread lchm. This indicates that it is was leavened. This bread called showbread was, literally, bread of the Presence or bread of the face because it was continually before the Lord. It was replaced every Sabbath and arranged in two rows each six loaves long. When the new loaves were placed on the table, the old ones were removed and eaten by the priests in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary. This in itself was a feat for early Israel since each loaf was two tenth deals (of an ephah). A tenth deal is about a gallon so we are talking about 2 gallons of flour. I believe that it is fair to estimate that each loaf weighed about 13 pounds. Water weighs approximately 8.34 pounds per gallon and the final product would have to contain considerable water for people to be able to bite through it, if it was unleavened. The priests that entered the Holy Place were the family of the High Priest only. That is a lot of tough bread to eat especially if you have alternatives.

Separating truth from error

Edersheim, Josephus and others are venerable historians who reported what the practice was as honestly as they could but what if it had already been corrupted by the time that they got the information? Bear in mind teh type of priesthood that developed from the Maccabees.

According to Edersheim in The Temple: Its Ministry and Services Chapter 9 Sabbath in the Temple

The Shewbread Itself

The shewbread was made of the finest wheaten flour, that had been passed through eleven sieves. There were twelve of these cakes, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, ranged in two piles, each of six cakes. Each cake was made of two omers of wheat (the omer = about five pints). Between the two rows, not upon them (as according to the Rabbis) (Menach. xi. 5), two bowls with pure incense were placed, and, according to Egyptian tradition (LXX Lev 24:7; Philo ii. 151), also salt. The cakes were anointed in the middle with oil, in the form of a cross. As described by Jewish tradition, they were each five handbreadths broad and ten handbreadths long, but turned up at either end, two handbreadths on each side, to resemble in outline the Ark of the Covenant. Thus, as each cake, after being 'turned up,' reached six handbreadths and was placed lengthwise on the breadth of the table, it would exactly cover it (the one cubit of the table being reckoned at six handbreadths); while, as the two rows of six cakes stood broadwise against each other (2 x 5 handbreadths), it would leave between them two handbreadths vacant on the length of the table (2 cubits = 12 handbreadths), on which the two bowls with the incense were placed.

We have been thus particular on account of the inaccuracies in so many articles on this subject. It ought to be stated that another Mishnic authority than that we have followed seems to have calculated the cubit at ten handbreadths, and accordingly gives different measurements for the 'shewbread'; but the result is substantially the same.

The preparation of the shewbread seems to have been hereditarily preserved as a secret family tradition in 'the house of Garmu,' a family of the Kohathites (1 Chron 9:32; Mish. Shekal. v. 1). The fresh cakes of shewbread were deposited in a golden dish on the marble table in the porch of the sanctuary, where they remained till the Sabbath actually commenced.

In addition Josephus indicates that the bread was unleavened (Ant., III, 6, 6).

...were laid twelve unleavened loaves of bread, six upon each heap, one above another: they were made of two tenth-deals of the purest flour, which tenth-deal [an omer] is a measure of the Hebrews, containing seven Athenian cotyloe; and above those loaves were put two vials full of frankincense.

The problem here is separating the truth from the error. While these might have been true at the time the information was recorded, all of these requirements (e.g. anointing in the shape of a cross) are not stated in the Bible and were probably added depending on the inclination of the people in charge at the time. So where do we separate the two. In other words the historians recorded the practices at the time, not the instructions given by God. As for leaven, it is certainly true that leavened products were prohibited from the altar as offerings: Leviticus 2:11 (KJV) No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire. Notice that the issue is burning leavened bread or honey but to extend this requirement to showbread and claim that it must be unleavened would not be based on any stated requirement but purely on conjecture. This is because the showbread was never offered on the altar; it was never burned; it was simply carried into the Holy Place. You can find a discussion on sacrifices here.

Let us explore why God might not want leaven to be burned. Notice that honey and leaven are linked. Honey is very desirable. It cannot be faulted. There is no reference in the Bible to honey being anything but representing conditions in the Kingdom of God. It would stand to reason that it is in this regard that the two are joined. What I have observed is that only things of this world, i.e. that will pass away, are burned but honey is of the Kingdom of God (the Promised Land, as we just established) and by the same association with leaven that was just made, leaven should not be burned either. Unleavened bread, which is bread of austerity, certainly would.

The things that are burned represent death and destruction and in the case of the messiah; unjust death. These are not enduring attributes and are not representative of the Kingdom of God. There is no scripture that I could find which demands that Shewbread must be unleavened. It is unjustifiable to abuse the scripture in Chronicles which says Both for the shewbread, and for the fine flour for meat offering, and for the unleavened cakes, and for that which is baked in the pan, and for that which is fried, and for all manner of measure and size (I Chronicles 23:29 [KJV]). Notice that is begins with shewbread and then goes on to talk of items which are not shewbread which includes unleavened cakes. Shewbread represented Israel that was always before God and it was not an offering. There is no blood of any sacrifice associated with Shewbread.

Why would He want leaven to be eaten?

Remember that it is the lamb and not the bread that represented Christ to Old Testament Israel. The bread meant haste and it was eaten with the Passover. There is no lamb in the New Testament and the bread is not representing a dead Christ but simply His body that was broken and died but also resurrected and given life to continue eternally; the wine is what holds the symbol of blood. Partakers of this body will also partake of His enduring life. We do not offer anything in the New Testament except ourselves. There was one sacrifice by Christ that covers us all and that was the end (Hebrews 9:27-28, 10:8-11). Unleavened bread is rush bread or hurry bread. The Old Testament Passover was done in a rush to get our of Egypt but there is no hurry for us to crucify Christ in the New Testament. In any case the Crucifixion is not all the is to be remembered in His memorial: He lived, died and was resurrected and that is His memorial.

The animals offered on the altar were lifeless and were never resurrected. Blood had to be spilled. It would stand to reason that the same extended to the unleavened bread i.e. it was lifeless. The altar represented death, suffering and hardship. Death will not be in the Kingdom of God. Honey certainly will and so will leaven, at least in the spiritual sense. The Kingdom of God is likened to leaven.

and the Promised Land, which is a picture of God's Kingdom, is represented by milk and honey.

These are things that represent abundant life while unleavened bread represents austerity and hardship.

In The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, under the caption Bloody and Unbloody Offerings in Chapter 5 Sacrifices: Their Order and Their Meaning, by Edersheim, he also points out

The readiest, but perhaps the most superficial, arrangement of sacrifices is into bloody and unbloody. The latter, or 'Minchah,' included, besides the meat- and drink-offering, the first sheaf at the Passover, the two loaves at Pentecost, and the shewbread. The meat-offering was only brought alone in two instance priest's offering (Lev 7:12) and that of jealousy (Num 5:15), to which Jewish tradition adds the meat-offerings mentioned in Leviticus 2. If in Leviticus 5:11 a meat-offering is allowed in cases of extreme poverty as a substitute for a sin-offering, this only further proves the substitutionary character of sacrifices. From all this it will be evident that, as a general rule, the meat-offering cannot be regarded as separate from the other or bloody sacrifices. In proof of this, it always varied in quantity, according to the kind of sacrifice which it accompanied (Num 15:1-12; 28:1-12; 39:1, etc.).

Showbread was not in the same class as other offerings, it was note even and offering in the technical sense. It was never combined with dead animals. Neither was the wave sheaf or the wave loaves.

It is also possible that the knowledge was lost since the method of manufacture was apparently a secret entrusted to the house of Garmo, a family of the Kohathites. It would clearly break the analogy given to showbread as being representative of Israel. Israel was intended to be in the Promised Land which flowed with milk and honey.

Challah

This discussion on challah is also directed at the claim that the Septuagint or LXX is to be the standard used for translation and the Septuagint uses Greek artos in Leviticus 24:5-6 showing that one of its accepted meanings was unleavened bread. I don't believe that the appropriateness of the Septuagint over the Majority Text could be adequately covered in this article. I will say however that there is a strong body of evidence recommending the majority Text over the LXX. The Majority Text is so called because it has been corroborated by the majority of reliable sources. The reader would have to investigate whether the case for the LXX is as strong to them personally, but the fact that something exists in the LXX is not sufficient to establish authority in my opinion.

In the AV (or King James) the word translated bread in Leviticus 24:5-6 is Hebrew challah. The argument in support of unleavened bread proposes that because in Exodus 25:30 [LXX] (talking about showbread) and Leviticus 24:5-6 [LXX] (outlining the preparation of showbread) artos is used and similarly artoi in 1 Samuel 21:3-6 [LXX] (when David was given showbread) then showbread is unleavened, and by extension the bread at the Lord's supper too. This argument not only relies on a single obscure scripture in a single version but it requires a stretch in reasoning that bends logic to its breaking point. It proves that there is a distant possibility but it is not reasonable to use that to prove that what is clear from other renderings is incorrect. We have already dealt with the Biblical requirements and evidence for showbread in general, therefore the key question to resolve now is whether or not this bread spoken of in Leviticus 24:5-6 was actually unleavened.

In contrast to the bread of affliction (i.e. unleavened Bread) is the type of bread called challah. From Wikipedia we have:

Rituals and religious significance

According to Jewish tradition, the three Sabbath meals (Friday night, Saturday lunch, and Saturday late afternoon) and two holiday meals (one at night and lunch the following day) each begin with two complete loaves of bread.[16] This "double loaf" (in Hebrew: lechem mishneh) commemorates the manna that fell from the heavens when the Israelites wandered in the desert after the Exodus. The manna did not fall on Sabbath or holidays; instead, a double portion would fall the day before the holiday or sabbath to last for both days.[17]

In some customs, each loaf is woven with six strands of dough. Together, the loaves have twelve strands, alluding to the twelve loaves of the showbread offering in the Temple. Other numbers of strands commonly used are three, five and seven. Occasionally twelve are used, referred to as a "Twelve Tribes" challah.

WikipediachallahWikipedia, the free encyclopediahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challahdated 05:05, 11 December 2020‎ 141.8.56.177

According to Judaism 101

Any traditional Jewish meal begins with the breaking of bread. Challah is a special kind of bread used for Shabbat and holidays. It is a very sweet, golden, eggy bread. The taste and texture is somewhat similar to egg twist rolls (those little yellow rolls that look like knots). The loaf is usually braided, but on certain holidays it may be made in other shapes. For example, on Rosh Hashanah, it is traditional to serve round challah (the circle symbolizing the cycle of life, the cycle of the years).

Judaism 101ChallahJudaism 101https://www.jewfaq.org/food.htm2011

The word challah or chle comes from a Biblical requirement in Numbers 15:19-21 Then it shall be, that, when ye eat of the bread [lchm] of the land, ye shall offer up an heave offering unto the LORD. [20] Ye shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough for an heave offering: as ye do the heave offering of the threshingfloor, so shall ye heave it. [21] Of the first of your dough ye shall give unto the LORD an heave offering in your generations (KJV). Since this is dough then the question is, was it leavened? I have inserted the Hebrew word used for bread in v19. You judge for yourself. The challah referred to this extracted portion of dough but now has been extended to refer to a class of Jewish leavened breads used on special occasions. After the temple was destroyed the offering of challah to the priests (specifically the kohanaim meaning male descendants of Aaron) was discontinued however Jewish housewives continued to extract the portion but they burned it. After some time the name was transferred from the burned portion to the bread that was produced. This wonderful bread is the bread for festivals rather than matzos. The question becomes, when did they separate it from the rest of their dough? Before they finished the dough or after? Would they run off in the middle of baking to carry dough to the priests from wherever they lived? Would they bake part of the dough as unleavened (inferior austerity bread) for the priest and then continue to bake the good one for themselves? It was not intended to be burned but to be eaten by the priests. Why would the priests want another set of unleavened bread and when would they choose to eat it? Bear in mind that the priests were the family of Aaron only, and this was a requirement of all Israel.

The word translated dough in Numbers 15:19-21 may also be translated as sponge. To me this is a clear indication of the nature of the dough. The next occurrence of the word according to Strongs is in Nehemiah 10. Notice

This is discussing the treatment of a special class of offerings. No animals are mentioned here and the indication is that these were not burned on an altar but that they went into chambers. The next reference is in Ezekiel:

Now some lexicons indicate that the word is somewhat different in these three cases but they all refer to sponginess. I hilighted the words in Numbers 15:19-21 above. In Numbers the Hebrew is orsth km followed by orsthi km the km meaning of you. In Nehemiah it is oristhi nu the nu meaning of us while in Ezekiel it is orsuthi km. Aparently in Ezekiel it is specifically spongy dough while in Numbers and Nehemiah it is sponges. Spongy would hardly refer to unleavened batter. The next point is the treatment of the offerings. There is no indication that they were burned on an altar. The indication to me is that in order to get the ratios right it was separated at the dough stage but then baked into cakes and given to the priest. There is no requirement to burn it on any altar.

The word challah or chluth is first found in Leviticus 2:4 where it specifically refers to unleavened bread indicated by adding the word mtzth (or matzo as it is more familiarly known) followed by the same use in Leviticus 7:12, but the unleavened is conspicuously omitted in Leviticus 24:5 where the topic is showbread.

When unleavened bread is intended the use follows our current English usage where two words [mtzth chluth] are used to complete the sense. This indicates that the normal or expected state of challah is leavened. It really would not make sense to say unleavened if the word being used already meant that i.e. to say unleavened unleavened bread. Some commentaries say that the word challah has to do with how the festive bread was decorated or braided and perforated. If this is the case then the normal meaning of the word is leavened decorated or festive bread but on occasion the same decoration may be applied to matzos. It should be noted that when unleavened the volume of the bread is much smaller and translated as wafers. To try to bake and eat a 13 pound unleavened bread would be rather extreme. We will return to the subject of challah later when talking about the wave loaves. The ancestry of challah along with being qualified by matzo in some sentences indicates that it was normally leavened.

The wave loaves

Under this heading I am also dealing with the argument stated above as follows: all offerings used Unleavened Bread. The Lord's Supper relates to an offering therefore this ceremony used unleavened bread.

Actually the Lord's Supper was certainly not an offering but to accommodate the argument I said relates to.

There is no question that the wave loaves (used on Pentecost) were leavened, but the single wave loaf (for the first omer) was not. That conclusion stems from practical constraints not biblical instructions. I have already demonstrated that there was no requirement to burn every offering and only offerings that were burned required unleavened bread, but it would have been impractical to make a leavened wave loaf for the first omer. There was just no time and no sourdough. The method of making leavened bread in the Old Testament depended on access to sourdough and they would have put all out of Israel.

Without sourdough it would take days to get bread to rise and they needed to cut the sheaf and grind it and bake it for the offering the same day of the first omer. If you allow the argument to rest on the relationship with challah then the argument is lost. The ancestry of the challah, along with the fact that the bread of the wave loaves are the same size as the showbread, would strongly indicate that the showbread was always leavened. Concerning the wave loaves we read:

So in each case we have 2/10 deal and they were both given to the High priest's family. They did not have to harvest and winnow etc. because they were brought out of their habitations. This was now at Pentecost and there was no restriction on leaven. Edersheim recognised that there was a clear distinction between the types of offering, so much so that they could easily be classified into bloody and un-bloody, and the wave loaves were not bloody.

What is Passover?

To assess the appropriateness of leaven we need to understand what Passover is. In ancient Israel it meant something vastly different from in the New Covenant. To them it meant escaping physical death and they had physical things to do in order for the death angel to bypass them. To those in the New Covenant the objectives are spiritual and so God created new symbols appropriate to spiritual requirements. Let's start with the Old Covenant.

Passover and Unleavened Bread

The Feast of Unleavened bread is the seven days following Christ's Passover. It is commanded in both the Old and the New covenants (1 Corinthians 5: 6-8). The use of Unleavened Bread at the Passover requires careful reading of both the Old and New Testaments. There is no way to recommend that we must use unleavened bread on Passover night unless we go to the Old Testament, and accept that the scriptures stating that we cannot offer blood with leaven, applies to the New Testament service. Old Testament services are making an offering but that is not true of the New Testament Passover. The situation with the Lord's Supper/Passover is not an offering, hence we have no case.

In spite of this I understand using unleavened bread because I prefer to err on the side of caution, since unleavened bread is bread too. The bread that came down from heaven was certainly in one sense unleavened. It remained unleavened because there was no time to let it ferment, since it had to be gathered fresh every day. It is true that since we do not know how it was produced then there is no way to confirm this. Christ was that bread. To continue with the case for leavened bread:

• The preparation day was not an unleavened day therefore eating bread on that day would carry no obligation to use unleavened bread.
• The word used for bread includes both leavened and unleavened but the general use of the word was leavened.
• There is a word that can be used to distinguish if God wanted to be specific, but He does not use it in the New Testament.
• Since God does not intend to deceive then we have no reason to assume a subtle meaning.

When these are taken into consideration the logical outcome would be that leavened bread should be used, and it would make perfect sense when the symbolism is considered. The sacrifice was the lamb and the blood taken together.

Comparing the Old Testament and the New Testament

• The blood was on the doorpost in the OT but was the same as the wine in the cup in the NT
  
• The lamb represents Christ in the OT but there is no lamb in the NT
  
• The flesh of the lamb in the OT is the bread in the NT
  
• The blood in the OT is the wine in the NT
• There are bitter herbs in the OT but none in the NT
  

The unleavened bread was the attitude of urgency or haste in the Old Testament.

There is no command stating that you cannot eat leaven on the day of the New Testament Passover. People try to force the symbolism of the Old Testament onto the New Testament Passover. From the symbolism represented in the list above, there does not appear to be any need for unleavened bread in the New Testament because the unleavened bread in the Old Testament was eaten in addition to putting the blood on the door post and eating the lamb. There are 4 elements in the Old Testament: unleavened bread, wine (normally drunk at celebrations), lamb roasted and blood on the doorpost. There are only two in the New Testament. There is no such thing as unleavened lamb to transpose to unleavened bread, the lamb is now the bread. The unleavened bread meant haste in the Old Testament and the haste is now represented in the vigil and the foot washing. Everything seems to be accounted for.

Christ is the Bread of Life

In the New Covenant Christ is the bread and there is no lamb. Christ is the bread of life for all occasions not just adversity or haste. Passover is not the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Christ is everyday food, food for every day, that is why He could use the incident with the feeding five thousand men to represent Him as the bread of life that came down from heaven, as I explain shortly.

Exodus12:15 and Exodus 13:6 tell us that we must eat unleavened bread everyday during the Feast of Unleavened Bread i.e. seven days after Passover. The reason why comes out in John 6. If people have sense enough to go after free food every day then we should have sense enough to seek spiritual free food every day. It shows where our treasure is and hence where our heart is (Matthew 6:21).

In John 6:1-14 we have the Miracle of the Five Loaves and two Fishes. The people would have made Christ king right there and then (verse 15). If a politician today was able to guarantee everyone free food they would clamor to make him king too. In verses 16-21 we have the miracle of Him walking on the sea. In verses 22-25 the people come after Him again. Even though they had to take boats they searched until they found Him in Capernaum.

In verse 26 seek from ye seek is translated from the Greek zhteite or zEteite which literally means YE-ARE-SEEKING.

Christ is saying something like you are tracking me down .... These people realised that He was a physical meal ticket and they were prepared to put in the effort to secure it. If we claim that He is a spiritual meal ticket then we should be willing to at least do the same. They went seeking Him out daily. What does that say about how we study the Bible and pray etc. That is what Christ is telling us in Exodus 12:15. We have to eat unleavened bread daily because it represents Christ. In John 6 Christ goes on to point this out but they did not understand. He told them that they were working so hard for free physical food and ignoring the spiritual one that is just as free. He went on to say that the same way that He gave them bread and fish The Father had authorised Him to give them eternal food. They wanted to know what they had to do to get it and He told them that all they had to do was believe on Him. Their minds went back to free food because they pointed out that God gave the sign of free daily food and so what was He (Christ) willing to do as a sign. He pointed out that they never had real eternal food and that it now was available to them from God through Him. So they said, We want it. Then He plainly told them that He was the one to give them eternal life by a resurrection and that was the real eternal food from heaven. We represent tracking God down for spiritual nourishment when we eat unleavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread but Passover in the New Covenant is a regular meal like any that we must have every day. We need everyday food to survive every day because for Christians the death angel comes every day.

Christ as Unleavened Bread at Passover

Christ’s life that is to be remembered was perishable, it lasted 33½ years but it represented all of the Bible. We need to remember that this life is temporary just as His mortal life was. Bread perishes, but Christ is not only our bread for this lifetime. He was resurrected. He is our eternal life. This means that He extends into the Promised Land. The unleavened bread was only for the Passover season and specifically the days of Unleavened Bread, but Christ is for all time so He is represented as any bread. The Passover represents death for one in order for death to pass over many. That is what is to be remembered. There is nothing unleavened about that but the unleavened part comes into play with what we do after and that leads to eternal life. The unleavened part is for us, austerity, urgency as is declared in the Old Testament. Christ did the pass over requirements on His own in the New Testament and the significance of bread has been changed to suit. What Israel did to show compliance was entirely outward. What Christians do represents something inward. The bread now means what was needed to transform us all, apart from death which is represented in the blood, and that transformation is not only for hard times or urgency. A more detailed explanation of leaven vs. unleavened is given in the article on the Feast of Unleavened Bread. His body had to be completely infused with the Holy Spirit just as leaven infuses leavened bread. The reason why we become the new lump is to become like Him with new leaven. That body represents the Kingdom and it operates like leaven, beginning as a mustard seed and taking over. His body represents what all food (leavened or unleavened) is to us i.e. all that is needed for life. It is the source of life. Thinking of Him as unleavened bread alone brings nothing to this understanding that I can think of.

If people use only the New Testament then the only logical conclusion is that Passover is leavened but it leads to confusion with the Seder. If you use the Old testament alone it can lead to a logical but out of context conclusion about the New Testament Passover based on the idea of it being an offering or sacrifice. When taken together they are in harmony and support leavened bread for Passover.