Did Jesus Use Unleavened Bread?

I was asked this week whether or not the bread that Jesus used at the Last Supper was leavened or not. And while we understand that Jesus’ death coincided with the Feast of Passover (or Unleavened Bread) the answer to this question is not straightforward. The reason is that in the four explicit descriptions of Jesus’ Last Supper (Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22-25; Lk 22:14–23; 1 Cor 11:23–26) and in John¹ all use the word ἄρτος for bread. The word ἄρτος is a generic word for bread rather than the word for unleavened bread is ἄζυμος (ἄ=without ζυμος= leaven), used in the Greek version of Exodus during the description of the Passover. The fact that the New Testament authors use this general word for bread has lead some scholars to understand that Jesus’ Last Supper incorporated leavened bread and that this was symbolic of something new.

Further, the timelines of the Gospels are unclear, there are some difficulties in aligning John’s timeline of events with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Additionally, confusion is created by the fact that Jews begin the day at evening and so when for instance Mark speaks of the “first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread” in 14:12 is he saying that it was during daylight Thursday the lambs were sacrificed and the meal was eaten that evening or was it Thursday evening that marked the day the lambs were sacrificed and the Last Supper was happening prior to the sacrifice of the lambs? The second of these seems most likely and the disciples were asking about preparations a day early so that they could be ready to take the slaughtered lamb back to the room and begin preparing it on Friday. All of this evidence adds up to at least making it plausible that Jesus and his disciples were eating a normal meal and so the bread was normal leavened bread.

But I do not on the whole think this is the likeliest case. While yes, the NT consistently uses ἄρτος instead of ἄζυμος the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) consistently uses ἄρτος in places where we know the bread was unleavened. Josephus a contemporary of Jesus does the same thing,. Meaning that when the context clearly indicated that the bread should be unleavened we should understand the bread is unleavened even if the writer uses ἄρτος instead of ἄζυμος.

Now the question is does the context clearly indicate that the bread was unleavened? The answer is yes, even though there is confusion created by the timelines of the Gospels, it is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke present Jesus’ meal to be on or after the day the lambs were slaughtered. Most likely the meal happened Thursday evening with the lambs being slaughtered on Friday, and since Jews believed the day begins with sundown this would be the same day. The reason this is significant is that leaven was to be removed prior to the day the lambs were slaughtered so there was none in the house on that day. This means that regardless of whether Jesus and his disciples were celebrating a Passover meal (whether early or on time) the leaven should have been removed during the day Thursday and not present at the time of the evening meal. Context then determines that even though the Gospels use a generic term for bread we should understand it to have been unleavened.

Side-quest: Does this mean we cannot use leavened bread in communion? I would argue that while there should be some level at which we remember the context of Jesus’ meal, the Passover and its rituals provide some meaning to communion, we should not be too legalistic about what is involved in the celebration. We can make concessions to the physical elements of the meal while retaining the heart of the meal. So can we use leavened bread in a observance of communion, yes.

For anyone who found this helpful and would like to ask a question email me at wesley@saintsandidiots.com or if you prefer to ask anonymously click here

1. While I definitely think the depiction of Jesus’ supper in John 13-17 is meant to describe the same events as the other four, there is some question since John seems to have a slightly different timeline and does not use the language of the Eucharist found in the other Gospels and Corinthians. ↩︎