Last night I was listening to Dr. Albert Mohler (“Ask Anything” Wednesday) and a caller questioned whether it was acceptable to use leavened bread in Communion.
Dr. Mohler indicated it was not necessary, but felt we should simulate the Last Supper as closely as possible, and since Jesus ate unleavened bread—we should too. He remembered eating leavened bread at communion only twice in his life.
We always had little squares of dry, unleavened bread at communion. If you want some, you can buy them here.
Yet if we are trying to simulate it as closely to Jesus’ supper as we can—shouldn’t we use wine as well? Instead of grape juice? Why is it felt to be necessary to be accurate in the bread-department, with an equally necessary slight modification in the wine-department? Is this consistent?
If we are trying to be as close to the Last Supper as possible, we should have unleavened bread, wine, and wash each other’s feet. Or at least have the leader of the congregation do so. (Wouldn’t that be a switch?) But, of course, Baptists don’t drink alcohol (nor do we wash each other’s feet), so we substitute grape juice.
Not orange juice. Not water. Not red juice. Not lime, lemon, pop, root beer, coffee, tea, or apple juice. Always grape juice. Clearly we are not emulating exactly what Jesus drank; is it so important we emulate what he ate?
Imagine offering Girl Scout cookies instead of the wafers--Sacrilege!
Isn’t it funny we have become so immersed in tradition we use unleavened bread to copy Jesus, but symbolic grape juice to not.