CONTINUATION OF https://extranos.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-validity-of-lutheran-online.html
During
communion, does your pastor go to each of you and distribute to you the bread
and wine? I must say, this is a lovely gesture, comforting and very touching.
Frankly, I like the way this is done. It is orderly and efficient.
However,
that is not what happened during the Last Supper.
There is this
notion going on that for the Sacrament of Communion to be valid, it must be
done the same way as the Lord did it, if not, the Sacrament is not valid.
People of
this belief (I would say, mistaken), believe that the distribution the way
their pastor is doing it, must be observed or else the Communion Sacrament loses
its significance and validity.
To show that
it is not the way it happened in the Last Supper – the accounts of this is
found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The sequencing is slightly
different with Luke 22: 14-23. The point is that these happened and the bread
and wine got consumed,
Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper
14 When the hour had come, He sat down,
and the [b]twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire
I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until
it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks,
and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, [c]I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the
kingdom of God comes.”
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and
broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This
is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the
cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant
in My blood, which is shed for you. 21 But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with
Me on the table. 22 And
truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man
by whom He is betrayed!”
23 Then they began to question among themselves, which
of them it was who would do this thing.
If we look
at the order here, it is different from how it is done in the churches. For
example, here, the distribution of the wine came first. You must be accustomed
to the bread being the first to be distributed. However, this is not the case
here.
Now to defend
the notion that how so many of us have been doing it the way the bread first
and then the wine second, people have appealed to master exegetes. One of which
is R. H. Lenski. We will focus on v.17 & 20.
Here is
what Lenski says of the above passage. Lenski explains that what Jesus was
going through was part and parcel of the Jewish Passover sequence which is made
of 10 phases. He makes it appear that there are several cups in this Passover.
Truly, when Lenski describes what was happening in that passage you can almost
see Lenski being there in that scene. For Lenski, there was an entirely
different cup – he says “This was an entirely different cup (v.20), one that
was passed after the Passover dining had been concluded”.
Now many
exegetes think so too – that there were several cups, but and there is a big
but – there are those equally in number who do not cozy up with Lenski. For
one, Lenski imports too much extra Biblical information, meaning OUTSIDE the
Bible to make his case.
For
example, we do not have any information from Luke that this or that is the way
they did the Passover. Also, if your knowledge of the Passover is post Temple
destruction, then that Is Rabbinic and it is an anachronistic reading of
Scripture. The safest method is to stick what Scripture says and not make any
suspicious notions into Scripture.
Lenski is engaging
in argument from silence. Let’s not be shocked, he was after all human too.
If at all,
we can assume the same cup is what was used by Jesus in v 17 and v. 20. Why do
I say this? It is because then N/KJV translates it as “Likewise, he took THE cup”,
which cup, “THE cup” in v.17.
Indeed,
other exegetes come on my side too. For example, Norval Geldenhuys – The New
International Commentary on the New Testament – Luke. Alternatively, Walter
Leifeld – The Expositor’s Bible Commentary – Luke – argues for multiple cups
but comes out that the cup in v 17 and v 20 is the same cup, third cup of the Passover
Both of these exegetes come down to this point – it is the consumption of the
bread and wine – that was the point for the Supper. The sequencing is not the
point, the consumption is!
At last
Adam Clarke, conceded – the way we do communion in sequence is not necessarily
the same as we do it today. Look it up yourself – it is in Volume III, Clarke’s
Commentary.
Here is what he says...
So the point of my article - is this - Anti-Lutheran Online Communion (LOC) people have no right to put down LOC people's communion saying theirs is invalid because that is not the way the Lord instituted the Supper, when in fact the Anti-LOC are also not administering the Sacrament the way it was instituted either! What is true for the gander is true for the goose. Jesus did not go around doing what Lutheran and other sacramental pastors are doing, handing the bread and wine to one after another.
Here is what he says...
"It does not appear that our Lord handed either the bread or the cup to each person; he gave it to him who was next to him, and by handling it from one to another, they shared it among themselves, ver. 17. IN THIS RESPECT THE PRESENT MODE OF ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER IS NOT STRICTLY ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTION."
So the point of my article - is this - Anti-Lutheran Online Communion (LOC) people have no right to put down LOC people's communion saying theirs is invalid because that is not the way the Lord instituted the Supper, when in fact the Anti-LOC are also not administering the Sacrament the way it was instituted either! What is true for the gander is true for the goose. Jesus did not go around doing what Lutheran and other sacramental pastors are doing, handing the bread and wine to one after another.
Another take
away here is this – if you insists that for communion to be valid it has to be
the SAME way the Lord has done it – according to your opinion, then you miss
the POINT of Holy Communion!
No comments:
Post a Comment