A REBUTTAL OF FALSE DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

INTRODUCTION

By way of overview, I firmly believe that God’s Word “is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path” (Psalm 119:105) and that every word, every message, every teaching contained in it “is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Recently a paper was distributed entitled, “Should we use leavened or unleavened bread in our communion service?”  In the lesson that same morning a reference was made to “the authority of Christ” and its importance in our lives as Christians.

I humbly put it to you that we should consider carefully any thinking that conflicts with the teachings of Christ, that challenges His authority or which seeks to “modernise” the Church which He established in the First Century.

It is true, however, that from the very beginning, men have sought to change, modify, alter, twist, distort, even “pervert the gospel of Christ”, Galatians 1:7.  Yes, even in the first generation of believers, some were already teaching and practicing things that were different to what the apostles had brought to them as “the gospel of Christ”.

Writing to them from prison, the apostle Paul expressed his surprise and disappointment that some in the church were “so soon removed from him that called [them] into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (verse 6).

In verse 10, he asked them two incredibly powerful, rhetorical questions:

            “Do I now persuade men, or God?”

            “Do I seek to please men?”

In short, the gospel, or indeed any part of God’s Word, is not about coming up with reasons or excuses why God should change His ideas to suit us.  Nor is it about us pleasing ourselves or finding a “popular” alternative to what he has ordained or authorised as acceptable worship to Him.

The apostle Jude wrote, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”, Jude 1:3.

Like Paul in Ephesians 4:5, Jude believed that there was (and is) only “one faith”, one gospel, one message from God, revealed in His Word – “the faith”.

Like Paul, Jude believed that the gospel was worth defending.  He said it was important that he wrote to them and encouraged them to stand up for “the faith” that had been presented to them.

It is this faith that separates the true followers of Christ from those who really have no conviction in the Bible as the infallible Word of God.

So it is with only one desire, to speak the truth with love (Ephesians 4:15), that I write this rebuttal of the paper presented to the church recently, believing that God’s Word has the answers we need and that if we choose to serve Christ it can only be through understanding and practicing God’s Word, not through following the teachings of men.  As Jesus said,

“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”   (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7)

THE PAPER

To assist with considering the author’s paper,

• I will reproduce his entire document (in a different-coloured ink) as we discuss each section so that the reader is fully aware of what was written and can be assured that it is being dealt with honestly and fairly;
• I will refer to the writer of the paper simply as “the author” to keep our focus on his message rather than on personalities;  and
• For brevity, I will not comment on sentences or paragraphs which I essentially agree with.

THREE PROPOSITIONS

The author puts forward three propositions in his assertion that it is acceptable for us  to replace the unleavened bread that has been a core part of the teaching of the church since the days of the apostles with “everyday bread” of our own choosing today.

Effectively those three propositions are:

• That we can “symbolise” the bread and the grape juice of the Lord’s Table and substitute something else (paragraph 4);
• That the gospel accounts are ambiguous about which sort of bread to use, therefore it is optional (paragraph 6); and
• That we can use a different bread today because Christ is our Passover Lamb and “has taken away our sin (or leaven)” (paragraph 8).

Let’s look at the paper in detail.

PARAGRAPH 1:  When Jesus wanted His disciples to understand His death, and to remember what He accomplished for them on the cross, He did not give them a textbook or a lecture.  Instead, He gave them a meal to share.

PARAGRAPH 2:  We remember, rejoice and refocus our attention on Christ, the dying Saviour Who was raised to life, ‘Who came and is yet to come.’  We have Communion Services in Churches today because, at the Last Supper, this was the way that Jesus instructed His followers to remember Him.  At that meal, Jesus changed the Passover into Christian Communion, effectively bringing that particular religious service to an end.  To achieve this Jesus centred His focus on the bread and wine.

Note the third and fourth sentences in the second paragraph:

“At that meal, Jesus changed the Passover into Christian Communion, effectively bringing that particular religious service to an end.  To achieve this Jesus centred His focus on the bread and wine.”

Even though there are Jews to this day who seek to follow the teachings of Moses, God’s Word teaches us that the Old Law ended at the cross of Jesus.  All the celebrations, festivals, rituals and other traditions connected with worship in the Jewish Age were cancelled at the cross.  Both Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14 unequivocally confirm this.

Whilst it might be a popular idea and sounds theological, Jesus did not change “the Passover into Christian Communion”.  He simply took the unleavened bread and the freshly-pressed grape juice, that were a part of their traditional Passover celebration, and gave them new meaning.  The unleavened bread would represent His sinless body, broken for them, and the grape juice would represent His blood shed for them on the cross.

The Passover was much bigger than just the bread and the grape juice.  It was an elaborate seven day festivity that included, amongst other things, the killing of animals, the painting of door posts and lintels with blood, and the removal of all leaven from their houses.  As none of those traditions were carried over by Jesus into the church, it is an over-statement to speak of “changing the Passover into Christian Communion”, and it opens the doors for other unsound ideas to enter into the discussion.

PARAGRAPH 3:  There are Christians today who believe that we ought to use unleavened bread because Jesus probably did.  However, most protestant Christians do not use unleavened bread because we understand that Christ fulfilled all of the imagery involved in the Passover.  He, Himself, is our Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7).  The wine represented His blood and the bread represented His body, spilt and broken as a complete flesh and blood sacrifice.  Normal leavened bread during the days of unleavened bread became symbolic of sin for the Jews.  The Israelites were commanded to ‘de-leaven’ their homes.  Of course, only Christ can redeem us from our sin.  So our Lord and Saviour fulfilled all the types involved in the old covenant Passover.

Note the first sentence:

“There are Christians today who believe that we ought to use unleavened bread because Jesus probably did.”

This subtle statement is quite misleading in that there is actually no doubt at all in God’s Word about what sort of bread Jesus would have used on that occasion.

There are three detailed accounts in the New Testament of Jesus sitting down with his disciples to observe His last Passover with them.  These are found in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22.

All three gospel writers begin with a clear statement that the setting was “the feast of unleavened bread” (Matthew 26:17), “the feast of the passover and of unleavened bread” (Mark 14:1) or “the feast of unleavened bread... which is called the Passover” (Luke 22:1).  Further, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 also plainly refer to “the first day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed”.

The Law required all leaven (or yeast) to be taken out of their homes and only unleavened bread to be served during the seven days of the Feast (Exodus 12:15, et al).  If Jesus was to pass bread to his disciples it would only have been the bread that was typically available in a Jewish household at the time of the Passover feast.

Trying, then, to find a way to get ordinary, leavened bread on the table, is to ignore the universal customs of the day.

However, the Greek Text from which we derive our modern translations is even plainer.  There are just two Greek words which are translated as “bread” in the King James Version.

The more common word is  or “artos” in our English characters.  This word is translated 73 times simply as “bread” even though it had at least four different uses in the Greek language of Jesus’ day, namely,

The author cites 1 Corinthians 5:7, but let’s look at both verse 7 and verse 8:

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

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.”

Not only does the apostle refer to Jesus (rather than the bread and the grape juice) figuratively as “our Passover”, but he also refers to Christians as being “unleavened” (verse 7) and encourages them to serve God “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” rather than “the leaven of malice and wickedness”.

This is the symbolism of our Christian lives, not the substitution of leavened bread for the unleavened bread around the Lord’s Table.  How could leavened bread possibly represent the sinless life of Jesus?  On the other hand, what more fitting illustration could be made of our lives as Christians but to refer to us as being “unleavened” in the sight of God?  Except we put out of our lives malice and wickedness in all its forms, how can we truly say we are followers of Christ?

PARAGRAPH 4:  As we work this question through, there are three more important points.  Firstly, we need to decide if Communion Service is going to be a duplication of the original supper, in which case we would use unleavened bread, or is our approach symbolic of the supper, in which case we would use leavened bread.  Our focus should be on Christ’s atoning work, rather than [on] the mechanics.

The author assumes that the Scriptures allow us a choice, but what did Jesus actually ask His disciples to do?  Let’s read what the apostle Paul wrote to our brethren in Corinth about thirty years after Jesus sat down with his disciples, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26,

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Which bread was Paul referring to in verse 26 when he wrote “this bread”?  The same bread that Jesus had in his hand in verse 24 when he said that it was His “body, which is broken for you”.  The unleavened bread represented His sinless life about to be broken for them.

How can we then suggest that the church today should substitute something that represents sin in the place of the unleavened bread that Jesus broke?  And why would we want to substitute something that the disciples were expressly forbidden from having on their table that night?

Contrary to the ideas being put forward by the author of the subject paper, Jesus did not ask them to “approach” his command to remember him “symbolically”.  He gave them two physical, tangible things – the unleavened bread (the only bread on the table that evening) plus the simple, uncomplicated grape juice pressed out by their host a few hours before.

What is the author actually achieving by proposing that Christians somehow have a choice today, when clearly no choice is implied in the words of Jesus and when that “choice” would symbolically be saying the very opposite to what Jesus was teaching?

The last sentence of the paragraph reads,

“Our focus should be on Christ’s atoning work, rather than [on] the mechanics.”

Remembering the Lord’s death on the cross by doing exactly as He has asked us, is not “focussing on the mechanics”.  It is being obedient to His commands.  Just as Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, needed to follow God’s instructions (Leviticus 10:1-2, Appendix A), we also need to be willing to accept that God has clearly spelt out how he wants us to worship Him.  To bring leavened bread to the Lord’s Table when He taught that unleavened bread would represent His body is really no different to Nadab and Abihu bringing “strange fire” that “God had not commanded”.

PARAGRAPH 5:  As we think of the symbolism there are some great images.  One loaf represents the one body – the Church, and the understanding of Jesus’ body – flesh and blood, is our foundation for salvation.

PARAGRAPH 6:  Secondly, we need to understand the New Testament’s use of words in describing the Last Supper.  Only the word ‘artos’ is used for bread in Matthew 26, Luke 22 and in John 13 when Jesus actually gives Communion at the Last Supper.  In Matthew 26:17, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is referred to – the word is ‘azumos’; but when Jesus breaks bread in verse 26 He simply uses the word ‘artos’ (bread), with no mention if it is leavened or unleavened status.

The second sentence in the author’s sixth paragraph reads:

“Only the word ‘artos’ is used for bread in Matthew 26, Luke 22 and in John 13 when Jesus actually gives Communion at the Last Supper.”

Regrettably, this statement contains several inaccuracies.  Let’s look at the facts.

On the other hand, John uses the word for “Passover” ten times in his gospel account alone, and the only bread the Jews could have in their houses at Passover was unleavened bread.  So there is absolutely no “wriggle room” in the book of John for the author to conjure up a reason for us to start using ordinary, leavened bread in our “Communion Service”.

• Fourthly, the author is completely wrong when he claims that “only the word ‘artos’ is used for bread in Matthew 26 [and] Luke 22".  As we found in looking at the author’s third paragraph earlier, we know that Matthew, Mark and Luke all used both Greek words ( and –) in their account of the Last Supper.
• Fifthly, the specific Greek word for unleavened bread, , used in Matthew 26:17, as well as in Luke 22: 1 and Luke 22:7, is also used in Mark 14:1, Mark14:12, Acts 12:3 and Acts 20:6 – a total of seven times in the New Testament.  In every case it is in the context of the Passover, further emphasising the fact that only unleavened bread was used by Jesus in his institution of what the author calls “Christian Communion”.

Continuing on from the third sentence of this paragraph, the author writes,

“In Matthew 26:17, the Feast of Unleavened Bread is referred to – the word is ‘azumos’; but when Jesus breaks bread in verse 26 He simply uses the word ‘artos’ (bread), with no mention if it is leavened or unleavened status.”

We simply ask again, If it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread in verse 17, what bread would have been on the table in verse 26?

With Matthew carefully defining the occasion as one on which only unleavened bread would have been available, why does the author have so much trouble understanding that the gospel writer did not have to use the same word again for his readers to know without any doubt at all what sort of bread was on the table?

PARAGRAPH 7:  This occurs again in Luke 22, when the arrival of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is mentioned in verse 7, but when Jesus breaks bread in verse 19, He simply uses the word ‘artos’.  Again in John 13:18 the reference to ‘bread’ is ‘artos’, the same in verses 26 and 30.  The conclusion is that it is ambiguous, and the writers did not feel it was important to mention which bread and its significance is that it represented Jesus’ body.

Let’s look at Luke 22.

The same principles apply as in Matthew 26 in the previous paragraph, but this time the gospel writer Luke tells us twice that the bread being used is unleavened – in verse 1 and in verse 12.  How many times does the inspired writer need to tell us something?

If we want to be faithful stewards of God’s Word, we need to ask ourselves, Are we listening to the Word of God or are we looking for excuses to “do our own thing”?  Or, as the apostle Paul asked in Galatians 1:10, “Are we trying to persuade God, or men?  Or are we just seeking to please men?”

Let’s look again at John 13.

John has carefully spelled out in the very first verse of the chapter that the occasion was “the feast of the Passover”, the time when Jews removed all leaven from their homes.  The fact that he used the common word for “bread” instead of the specific word for “unleavened bread” in verse 18, as we have previously noted, is not surprising or significant.  The only bread they had in their homes was unleavened in any case.

What about verses 26 and 30 that the author also refers to?

Unfortunately, the author has “got it wrong again”, because the Greek word only appears once in chapter 13, and that is in verse 18 above.

In verses 26 and 30, the King James Version reads “sop”, not “bread”.  The answer is simple, the Greek word here (and in verse 27) is neither  nor –, but (“psomion” in our English characters, pronounced pso-mee'-on), an entirely different word meaning “a crumb, a morsel, a fragment, a mouthful or a sop”.  The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes a sop as “a thin, wafer‑like piece of bread dipped into the common dish as a sort of improvised spoon”.

Clearly John 13 is not referring specifically to the “communion” that Jesus instituted that night.  John does not even refer to the unleavened bread and the grape juice.  Rather, he refers broadly to the Passover meal during which Jesus discussed in earnest his pending death and the situations which would arise in the meantime.

The last sentence of paragraph 7 reads,

“The conclusion is that it is ambiguous, and the writers did not feel it was important to mention which bread and its significance is that it represented Jesus’ body.”

I struggle to take the author seriously.

Here we have the home of a friend of Jesus, without a doubt a faithful keeper of the Old Law.  There is not a skerrick of leavened bread in the house, and somehow we are expected to believe that there is ambiguity about what sort of bread was in Jesus’ hand when He broke it and shared it with His disciples.  Does the author seriously expect us to believe that Jesus (and all His friends around the table that evening) broke the Old Law?  That would, of course, be blasphemous.

The author’s misunderstanding (or misuse) both of the Jewish cultural situation and of the Greek language leaves him in an untenable position.  His suggestion that the inspired apostles recording the gospel accounts “did not feel it was important to mention which bread” completely ignores the fact that each one of them has clearly said it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread or it was the Passover, or both.

The author’s proposition that the Bible is ambiguous fails badly, possessing neither scriptural foundation nor scholarly merit.  To suggest that the Biblical text is “ambiguous” is both incorrect and blasphemous.  God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

In reality, the only ambiguity about these three passages of Scripture would appear to be in the mind of the paper’s author.  The Scriptures (both in English and in the original Greek) are very plain, the Jewish setting for the Lord’s last supper with His disciples is very plain, and the apostle Paul is very plain when he passes on to the Corinthians the teachings of Christ in 1 Corinthians 11.

PARAGRAPH 8:  If Jesus wanted us to use only unleavened bread during Communion, would He not have inspired those texts to read “unleavened bread” rather than “bread”?  Thirdly, there is a challenge that comes from 1 Corinthians chapter 5.  It is the challenge to live a holy life, seeing our lives are unleavened because Christ has taken away our sin (or leaven) as we have come to Him in repentance and faith, seeking His forgiveness and washing through His shed blood.

Who are we to question the wisdom of God?  How many times does God need to spell things out before we can believe?  However, the facts are that in each of the three passages being considered, God leaves no doubt about what sort of bread was in Jesus’ hand that evening.

PARAGRAPH 9:  Finally, through the resurrection, our Lord Jesus is able to transform the most mundane, everyday existence into an adventure with Him; to symbolize this we are able to use everyday bread in our Communion Service as a symbol of His broken body, given for us.

Why do we need to “symbolize” what the Lord can do since His resurrection?  And why does the author think this allows us “to use everyday bread in our Communion Service”?

Yes, Jesus can do many wonderful things – and He could before His resurrection also – but there is not a single Scripture in the Bible which gives us authority to “symbolize” (change, alter, modify) the bread we use to remember Jesus death on Calvary.

CONCLUSION

The author has set out to convince us that it is acceptable to substitute ordinary, leavened bread for the unleavened bread that the church has used since the days of the apostles in its remembrance of Jesus’ death on the cross.

• He has tried to convince us that “Jesus changed the Passover into Christian Communion” (paragraph 2), when Jesus only took two small parts of the Passover in setting out or establishing what we refer to today as “the Lord’s Table” or “communion”.
• He has tried to put doubt in our minds about why Christians still use unleavened bread (paragraph 3) suggesting that those who still use unleavened bread do not understand who Christ really is.
• He has claimed that “most protestant Christians do not use unleavened bread” (paragraph 3) when it really does not matter what the numbers are.  It is more important that we are following Jesus than following other men.
• He has suggested that Christians can now take an “approach symbolic of the supper” by using leavened bread instead (paragraph 4), without providing any Scriptural authority for changing what Jesus did with His disciples, and without explaining why only the bread needs to be “symbolized” and not the grape juice.
• He has tried to convince us that the gospel writers’ use of the non-specific Greek word for “bread” proves that it is not important which sort of bread we use (paragraphs 6 and 7), yet three of the four gospel writers, as well as the apostle Paul, all used the specific Greek word for “unleavened bread” when referring to the Lord’s Table.
• He has intimated that the Scriptures are “ambiguous”, leaving room for us to use a different bread if we wish (paragraph 7), when in fact the Scriptures are very plain and unambiguous.
• He has tried to persuade us that “symbolizing” the bread of the supper is acceptable (paragraphs 8 and 9), yet his alternative (leavened bread) is used throughout the New Testament to symbolize sin.  Even the author himself acknowledges this point, contradicting his own ideas, when he admits that “Christ has taken away our sin (or leaven)” in paragraph 8.

On every count he has failed, because the Scriptures simply do not support his arguments – nor his apparent desire to change what Jesus Himself authorised in the worship of the church.

If we are to be the disciples of Christ, we must sit at the feet of Jesus, not listen to the fickle philosophies of men or the doctrines of human institutions.  No amount of human “wisdom” can possibly match the “inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).  Nor can any college education or theological training give us the authority to change the Word of God.

If we are to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints”, we need to return to the Bible and to the doctrines and practices of the New Testament church.  That quest must start with restoring the pattern of worship in the church, beginning with re-establishing the true nature and value of the Lord’s Table in our assemblies.

Bevan Collingwood

© May 2015

APPENDIX A  –  OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES

NADAB AND ABIHU

In the Old Testament book of Leviticus, Moses recorded the account of two sons of his brother Aaron who lost their lives as priests under the Old Covenant.

Leviticus 10:1-3,

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Some may question why God would take the lives of his servants in this way, but the message is really quite simple, God had a particular way in which he wanted to be worshipped and obeyed.  To do something other than what “He had commanded them” was unacceptable to God.

In Deuteronomy 4:1-2, Moses wrote,

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

UZZA

Another example of how God sometimes has very specific expectations is found in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12.

As we read Exodus 25:12-14, Numbers 7:9, and 1 Chronicles 15:15 we understand that God had very precise requirements concerning the moving of the Ark of the Covenant.  Under the Old Law, the Ark could only be moved using poles on the shoulders of Levites from the family of Kohath.

Yet we find David, using a new cart and oxen driven by Uzza and Ahio to relocate the Ark from where it had languished in the house of Abinadab in Kirjath-jearim.  When the oxen stumbled at the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza reached out his hand to steady the Ark and “died before God”.

Again, this might seem harsh to us, but it demonstrates that God sometimes is quite specific in how his servants are to worship Him or serve Him.

Doing something that God “had not commanded” (Nadab and Abihu) or doing something which was actually forbidden (Uzza), were both unacceptable to God under the Old Covenant.

NEW TESTAMENT

When we turn to the New Testament, the idea of complete obedience to God, is repeated in at least four separate Scriptures.

Firstly, in Matthew 5:19,

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Secondly, in Matthew 15:9,

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Thirdly, with almost identical words in Mark 7:7,

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And fourthly, in Revelation 22:18-19,

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Is it unreasonable to seek to please God in the way that He has commanded, rather than following the ideas of uninspired men?

APPENDIX B  –  REFERENCES TO UNLEAVENED BREAD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (KJV)