This is part of a series on Roman Catholicism and the eucharist. See this index.
In “The Eucharist, Redux #4,” we discussed Craig Truglia’s claim that Jesus did not use unleavened bread at the Last Supper. As I pointed out, Truglia’s strongest argument was primarily one of grammar, not one of context.
In my argument, I stated that if the Last Supper was an instance of the Old Testament free will thanksgiving offering (or eucharist) of bread and wine, as Catholics and Orthodox claim, then it most likely would have utilized unleavened bread as that was what the Old Testament prescribed for such offerings. But what if the eucharist was not an integral part of the Last Supper? What if Jesus’ thanksgiving in the Last Supper was not a special event. If this scenario were true, it would invalidate the Orthodox and Catholic viewpoint, but permit the use of leavened bread. Neither of these two options is satisfying to anyone, be they Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.
I concluded by suggesting a third option: that the eucharist applies to any thanksgiving offering, not just the one Jesus offered in the Last Supper, but that Jesus also offered unleavened bread in the Feast of Unleavened Bread. At the time, I said…
That brings us to Timothy F. Kauffman’s most recent post, “Ye Shall Eat Unleavened Bread…” There he shows conclusively that, according to scripture, Jesus served unleavened bread at the Last Supper because it was the first meal of the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. I encourage you to read his argument, which lends credence to my claim that the Lord’s Supper was unleavened bread because it was the Feast of Unleavened Bread (followed by Jesus being the Paschal sacrificial lamb that same day) and that it was called the eucharist because of Jesus giving thanks and telling us to do the same.
Kauffman’s argument is a strong contextual argument from the law. It isn’t an historical argument. Truglia claims that there is no early historical evidence to support the claim that Jesus ate unleavened bread at the Last Supper. He claims that this did not begin until the just before the East/West schism. I’m not equipped to weigh in on this, but perhaps one day Kauffman will address this point.
Everything to do with the dogma of transubstantiation is just a bunch of hogwash. I think that issue alone should be sufficient to stop most people who encounter the claims of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy from converting to those groups. The faithful who cling to this crap are so self-deceived. Here is one of my pieces addressing the issue of the nature of the communion elements:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2017/02/is-roman-catholic-eucharist-biblical.html