“The seder at the time consisted of the blessing of a first cup of wine, the setting down of the whole roasted lamb with the unleavened bread and bitter herbs, the mixing of a second cup of wine with water and spices, the head of the household reciting the events of the first Passover, the prayer over the bread, the eating of the meal, the mixing of the third cup of wine with the saying of grace after the meal, the final cup of wine and the singing of the Hallel, Psalms 115-118”

The above quote from Cornelius Jaenen’s book The Apostles’ Doctrine and Fellowship appears in a footnote describing the Jewish seder meal. In it he seems to acknowledge the use of unleavened bread in early Christian worship; however, the 2×2 Fellowship does not use unleavened bread in their “emblems”. I remember sitting in Sunday morning meeting as a child watching that little quarter-slice of white Wonder Bread make its way around the room as the professing members would solemnly pinch off a piece of it and pass it around. That little white piece of bread, with its uniformly soft, velvety surface of finely woven strands of cottony dough that looked like a sponge, would yield immediately when they would pinch off a piece and then slowly expand back toward its original shape. When we were young children, we would play “meeting” with our friends and pass a piece of bread back and forth to mimic the grownups.

Bread in scripture symbolizes many things - physical sustenance, divine provision, community, and the spiritual nourishment found in God. Leaven is a substance added to bread dough to cause it to rise. It was typically a small portion of fermented dough saved from a previous batch which was mixed into a new batch. As the natural yeasts and subsequent fermentation spread through the dough, it became lighter, airier, and increased in volume.

The symbolic meaning behind unleavened bread is scripturally significant. In rabbinic literature, the physical comparison between leaven (chametz) and unleavened bread (matzah) forms the basis for a profound metaphor. While matzah is flat, humble, and unchanged from its natural ingredients, chametz rises, expands, and fills itself with air. The foundational text connecting leaven to the inner human struggle is found in the Jewish Talmud, in a prayer that explicitly identifies leaven as the source of human rebellion against God:

"Sovereign of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that our will is to perform Your will, and what prevents us? The yeast in the dough and subjugation to the kingdoms." (Talmud, Berakhot 17a)

In this passage, "the yeast in the dough" is the classic rabbinic idiom for the Yetzer Hara (the evil inclination or corrupt impulse). Just as a tiny speck of yeast silently ferments, swells, and “contaminates” a lump of dough, the rabbis taught that pride and selfish desires secretly enter the human heart, inflating the ego until a person rebels against God's law - exactly the opposite of Jesus the Messiah.

There was a historical basis for using unleavened bread, as well. The ancient Jews were instructed to use unleavened bread because of their hurried escape from Egypt, when there was no time available to fully knead the dough and give it time to rise before baking it (Ex 12:29). So, the Passover meal that commemorated this Exodus was therefore supposed to be eaten with unleavened bread (Ex 29:2, Num 9:11).

Similarly in the New Testament, leaven represents sin, impurity and hypocrisy (Gal 5:9, Lk 12:1, Mt 16:6-12, Mk 8:15, 1 Cor 5:7-8), whereas unleavened bread represents Christ’s sinless body - purity and sincerity - while also following Paul’s instruction of purging out the “old leaven of malice and evil” (1 Cor 5:7-8). At the Last Supper Jesus instituted the Eucharist, which was a Passover seder meal, and because Jewish law required removing all leaven (yeast) from the home, this is what Jesus used.

Dr. Jaenen might object that the early Western Rite also used leavened bread for centuries, and the Eastern Rite Catholics (Orthodox) still use leavened bread to this day. This is both true and irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Church transitioned to using unleavened bread in the 8th Century, and by the 11th Century it was mandated. This requirement was actually one of the major points of contention in the eventual East-West schism of 1054 AD. It was not until 1439 AD at the Council of Florence that the Catholic Church formally declared that Transubstantiation was validly effected in either leavened or unleavened bread:

“We have likewise defined that the body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread and that priests ought to effect the body of our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether that of the West or of the East” (Decree for the Greeks).

There is a notable irony in this particular comparison between the 2×2 Fellowship and the Catholic Church. Dr. Jaenen frequently criticizes the Catholic Church for allegedly adding doctrines and practices that departed from apostolic Christianity, while simultaneously claiming that the 2×2 Fellowship is the closest modern expression of the primitive church. Yet, despite the strong biblical and historical connection between the Last Supper and unleavened bread, 2×2s do not use unleavened bread in their eucharistic observance. By contrast, the Catholic Church - often accused by Jaenen of ostentatious innovation - eventually standardized the use of unleavened bread, thereby moving closer than 2×2s to the original Passover context of the New Testament Eucharist. So, the church accused of departing from primitive Christianity made a change toward an earlier practice, while the group claiming the closest continuity with the apostolic church did not.

Ultimately, playing theological “whataboutism” by appealing to the practices of other Christian groups does not resolve this crucial contradiction for a group that has based their entire faith system primarily on where they meet for worship (private homes) and how many Workers travel together (2×2). This kind of argument could be seen as the logical fallacy known as tu quoque (Latin for "you too") which acts as a deliberate distraction to avoid accountability. Whether or not other churches used leavened bread does not change the truth value of our original accusation, which is the fact that 2×2s do not use the same form of bread that the church of the New Testament did and therefore do not most closely resemble the primitive church.

The relevant question here is whether the 2×2 Fellowship consistently follows the customs of the earliest Christians to the degree it claims. If they maintain that they most closely resemble the New Testament church, then their departure from the historically attested use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist identifies an obvious inconsistency. The practices of other churches have no bearing on whether the 2×2 Fellowship’s claim to unique apostolic fidelity is consistent with its own practice. In other words, the standard by which the 2×2 Fellowship must be measured is their own claim to preserve the faith and practice of primitive Christianity. To this end, they been measured and weighed on the scale of authenticity and found wanting (Dan 5:27).

Jaenan, C.J. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Legas Publishing. 2003. p. 111.