Should communion bread be unleavened?

Sincerely,
Kneading An Answer

Dear Kneading An Answer,

The Bible only uses unleavened bread in the Lord’s Supper, and therefore we should only use unleavened bread. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ during the Passover when the Jews only ate unleavened bread (Mk 14:12, Ex 12:19). Paul alludes to the unleavened bread used in communion and in the Jewish Passover in 1 Cor 5:8.

If the church disregards the example of using unleavened bread in communion, it might as well disregard using bread altogether. Why not orange juice and bacon? Or potato salad and diet Coke? It is very important, vital even, that we always use Bible examples as our guide (Php 3:17), that we imitate the faithful who have gone before us (1 Cor 11:1). Only when we follow Biblical examples can we be confident that we are God’s church and not just another man-made religion.

I have two questions regarding the Holy Spirit:

1. Speaking in tongues: Does this still happen? What are some verses that talk about this subject?
2. Prophesy: Can we prophesy through the Holy Spirit? Or who does/can?

Please help me answer these questions.

Sincerely, Visions of Answers

Dear Visions of Answers,

Speaking in tongues and prophesying are miraculous abilities that no longer exist because they are no longer needed. The purpose of miracles was to bear witness that Jesus and His apostles were sent by God (Heb 2:4). Both speaking in tongues and prophesying were miraculous abilities that the church needed in its infancy. Speaking in tongues was useful for preaching the gospel to unbelieving nations with various languages; prophesy was useful for teaching the church God’s will before they had a complete New Testament (1 Cor 14:22). Now that the New Testament is complete and has spread to every nation and language, there is no need for such miracles. Paul himself said that miracles were only needed until knowledge of God’s will was perfectly preserved for all mankind (1 Cor 13:8-10).

The easiest way to see that these miracles have ceased is to see how God provided them. The Holy Spirit provided the apostles with the ability to perform miracles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The apostles could perform miracles, and they also had the unique ability to pass on miraculous abilities through touch (Acts 8:15-18). Since the apostles were the only ones that could pass on the ability to perform miracles to others, we would need an apostle alive today in order to still have prophesy, speaking in tongues, miraculous healings, etc. The miracles died out with the final person that the last living apostle laid his hands on. Today, we are led by the perfect and complete Word of God (Jude 1:3, Rom 1:16), and those miraculous abilities are no longer necessary.

When I was going to a youth conference on the weekend, I was reading the Bible in the book of Acts. I found Acts 2:17-21.

I knew this verse had something to do with the weekend. When we stopped at a coffee shop, I told my friend about the verse, and she thought it was amazing. When we were at the main session of the youth conference, the preacher used this verse… does this have any spiritual meaning?

Sincerely, Acting on Acts

Dear Acting on Acts,

The coincidence of the preacher using this verse aside, every Bible verse has a spiritual meaning and significance. Acts 2:17-21 is an excerpt from Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, the very first sermon preached after Christ ascended into heaven. Peter is quoting the book of Joel (Joel 2:28-32) and stating that what Joel wrote about was happening now. The verses have nothing to do with our behavior today or the end of time. If someone uses those verses to talk about speaking in tongues, modern day prophecy, visions, or the end of the world – they are misusing the Bible. Those verses refer to that particular day and the time period surrounding Christ’s life and death. Let me explain the context.

For 400 years, the Jews had received no word from God - no prophets, no visions, no dreams, nothing. Then, after all that silence came:

1. Zacharias and the angel (Lk 1:13)
2. Elizabeth’s prophecy (Lk 1:41)
3. Simeon’s prophecy (Lk 2:26)
4. Anna’s prophecy (Lk 2:36)
5. The vision of the shepherds (Lk 2:8-9)
6. John the Baptist’s preaching (Matt 3:1)
7. Jesus’ miracles (Jhn 2:11)
8. The miracles of Jesus’ seventy disciples (Lk 10:17)

There was a veritable explosion of supernatural events. Peter is explaining how this influx of miracles, visions, and prophecy were a fulfillment of what Joel had said would happen in the last days of Israel. ‘In the last days’ doesn’t mean the end of the world in this circumstance; it means the end (or last days) of the Old Covenant. Peter is using these verses from the book of Joel to illustrate that Jesus really is the Messiah that the Jews had been waiting for. Jesus fulfilled Joel’s prophecy, and today we reap the benefits of it.

I was reading a question to a priest, and I asked him why we call him ‘father’ when it specifically says not to in the Bible (Matt 23:8). His response was that it is for the same reason a child calls their parent ‘father’; they are the natural father and the priest is the spiritual father. While I believe calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong, why is it okay to call our birth parent ‘father’?

Sincerely, Paternal Nomenclature

Dear Paternal Nomenclature,

Calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong because, as the priest said, it is referring to ‘father’ in a spiritual sense. That is what Christ is condemning in Matt 23:8-10. Christ is rebuking people who elevate themselves above others within the church. Catholic priests place themselves in a position of spiritual superiority and authority above others. That is wrong and exactly what Christ told His disciples never to do.

On the other hand, the term ‘father’ is perfectly fine when used to refer to a physical parent. The Bible itself uses the word ‘father’ almost 1,000 times, and the vast majority of those times refer to fleshly parents. Gen 2:24, Gen 9:22, Lev 20:9, Pr 17:25, Mk 10:29, Lk 11:11 are just a few examples. Our fathers are a blessing from God given to us for a time to guide and discipline us (Heb 12:9-10). They are worthy of honor and the title ‘father’ (Eph 6:2).

My daughter would like to start attending a congregation much closer to her home, but the congregation sends a small fund to another church to support a preacher in Cuba. It also has, on occasion, had ladies’ meetings at which a lunch is served. The church that she attends at present does much of the same things, except they have church sponsored pot-lucks held at the building once a month and game days on a chosen day at the building. Both of the congregations are in the liberal camp, but the first congregation has a good program for learning, strong elders, and would not pressure a person into doing anything against their own conscience. The question is, which of these two congregations would you recommend that she attend, and how would you counsel her to give of her means since she knows it is her responsibility? Thank you; she will be looking forward to hearing the answer.

Sincerely, Motherly Mother

Dear Motherly Mother,

It sounds like a no-brainer to me. You are trying to choose between two undesirable situations, so I will only respond to the question you asked. The first congregation you mentioned is:

1. much closer
2. less liberal
3. has better elders
4. has better teaching

In my opinion, that would be the best choice.

Now, concerning your question on giving: you certainly need to give as you have been prospered (1 Cor 16:2). I know nothing about the congregation you described, but I do know that there are a hundred different degrees of liberalism as well as conservatism. If you can give with a good conscience (1 Tim 1:19), then give at that congregation. If you believe your money will be used unscripturally and/or will be used to promote more unscriptural projects, then I would send my money to a congregation that would use it in harmony with the Lord's will. Perhaps that congregation would also be a better one to attend.