That is not exactly how it happened.

UPDATED May 28, 2020
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...

"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!

The Validity of Lutheran Online Communion

I am writing this out of concern for the spiritual nourishment of Christians. Jesus said to Peter several times, feed my lamb, feed my sheep. If you love Christ, you will feed Christ’s sheep. Not to feed Christ’s sheep is not to love Christ – John 21:17.

This corona-virus crisis is opening up many cans of worms, not only economic issues but religious as well. It looks like Lutherans will be deprived of Holy Communion for as long as social distancing is required. To me, a fortnight without communion is a disastrous situation already.  Yet it seems some ministers with a point of view are willing for their flock to starve of this part of the means of grace which God has given to the Church as a gift, for nourishment. Some even argue that this is a forced fast for God’s people – forced fast! Worth repeating, God does not want you to have communion, that is your fast? If you are not shocked by this, forgive me for being more sensitive than you. If there is someone who does not like you to avail of the means of grace, it is the devil, I’d say.

So I go now to this issue of Online Communion.  Is it valid?

If you confront a thinking Lutherans and ask them if they believe the Word is efficacious, of course, you will not catch them denying that the Word of God is effective. The self-same Christian would likely have listened to a sermon in their podcast or even on YouTube. They, no one would doubt, believe anyone could get save through such a broadcast, but …

If a minister conducts an online communion – this is a no-no. I wonder if they think all online communions are the same, to be rejected.

There is one thing to affirm in theory the efficacy of the Word, but it is astounding if it is also hypocritically denied in practice.

Let me give a scenario. You attend A Skype or Zoom service broadcast. You put the bread and wine close to your device and the minister when it is time now for the Lord’s Supper, the minister reads out the Words of Institution for consecration ,you then partake of bread/body, wine/blood of Christ. Let is add further that before he consecrates, he gives a warning of not eating the bread and wine unworthily.

Many so-called Lutherans who claim orthodoxy say this is off.  As if the old orthodox Lutherans anticipated the issues presented by the Internet!

Lutherans who oppose Online Communion present a couple of BoC passages to assail the validity of an Online Communion performed by other Lutheran pastors. 

https://logia.org/logia-online/the-impossibility-of-online-administration-of-the-lords-supper2020
Before diving to respond to this post, I must commend Pless's for not importing any other personality's arguments into the discussion. I guess he well knows that we are not obliged to subscribe to people's opinions because to a Lutheran only Scripture counts and guided exposition form the BoC, the Confessions. That is all.

I will group them into two:

a.)     Solid Declarations VII,75, 79 and 85-88

b.)    SmallCald Articles  II, II 8-9

I will deal with them one by one but be warned about me, I do not consider the BoC at par with Scripture, I only have OT and the NT as authoritative source, so the BoC is not another Talmudic document for me.

To find out if the quotes from the BoC are sound to throw down online communion by Lutheran, we need to do exegesis of the BoC text the anti-onliners present.

Note: The BoC was written in a certain context. Here they are,  so please get a copy of your BoC and read the references for yourself. I am using Tappert’s translation.

a.)     SD  VII, 75,79, 85-88. Here also we will focus on the word “distribution” because the anti-onliners say this is not what is happening in Lutheran online communion. Let us see how this idea is mentioned there.

1.       SD VII, 75,79 Context: The Sacramentarians – you see this word mentioned. Who are they? These were Lutherans who deny Romanist transubstantiation and the Lutheran sacramental union, so Calvinistic in other words. This text asserts that as bread and wine are presented, and are being distributed and are being consumed the body and blood of the Lord is there. Let me ask the question, do Calvinist distribute the elements?  They do. It asserts the Word of Institution is efficacious and remains effective at the presentation, distribution, and consumption. It states “Christ himself is still active through the spoken words by virtue of the first institution, which he wants to be repeated”. When did his first institution happen? 2000 years ago at the Upper Room! A recording?  Sounds like it even is. The online communion Lutheran ministers do repeat the Words of Institution and the argument using this BoC passage is red herring, Further, there is no mention of a legalistic manner the elements are to be handled.

2.       SD VII, 85-88: Context: The Romanist practice of the mass. Note it is deflecting the idolatrous misuses and perversion of the Supper. Here it mentions the “actions”: the consecration or words of institution, the distribution, and reception [of the elements]. Now here “distribution” is used, what did this mean? It is even explained! Further on in 87, it explains the Papistic abuse of NOT DISTRIBUTING the entire elements of bread and wine. Let’s read it “Apart from this use it is not to be deemed a sacrament, as when the papistic Mass the bread is not distributed (ie not given to communicants) but is offered up, or locked up, or carried about etc.” As a former RC kid I know this – it is called Eucharistic Adoration.

Let’s pause. Are not the complete bread and wine available for the communicant in an online communion? They are!  Do the communicants worship the elements after consecration? No. Thus they are distributed in their above context. Again these BoC passages do not hit the target against Lutheran Online Communion. Further, there is no legalistic manner how this is to occur, that is not the point as well. For example, it does not say here that the pastor has to physically shove the bread to the communicant’s mouth. Or is there a rule that once the wafer or bread is in the mouth, it is not to touch the communicant’s palate.

c.)     SmallCald Articles  II, II 8-9: Context: Romanists Mass: As a RC kid, I knew very well that the priest practiced private mass for themselves. But the Lutheran Online Communion is not a mass. That is the first point. In fact, some Lutheran ministers do not raise the host to avoid the conception it is a sacrifice offered to God. Secondly, the communicant is not alone. For in a broadcasted communion, with the elements present in the locality of the communicant all consume at the same time – they are separated by space, but not in time – they are not alone. To say they are is being dishonest and they do not know what they criticize.
a
As for the possibility that the communicant may unworthily discern the body and blood of Christ, the Online Pastor can preface before the Word of Institution some warning words to that effect. So that issue can also be mitigated.

It has to be some sleight of hand to tell the believers that the orthodox Lutherans prescribed a legalistic manner of administrating and consuming the Supper elements. It is also a misconception to think that one has to re-create to the letter every element of the Maundy Thursday Upper Room scenario to make the Supper valid. Moreover, this stems from following some human tradition or interpretation which we know is another idol. Jeremiah 17:5.

In the end, it boils down to believing if the Word is efficacious even over the Internet or not.

This coronavirus has already deprived many of life and livelihood. It has already given people suffering, the believer should not be given unnecessary further deprivation of a vital element given by the Lord to his disciples for the furthering of their faith – the Supper.

When an adiaphora is no longer an adiaphora

What is an adiaphora in Christianity? They are  ceremonies or rites which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, with a good intention to promote good order and propriety, or for discipline.

When someone makes an adiaphora no more an adiaphora but a dogma, an item by which a Christian is judged as being bad for not complying, then you got a cult in the making.

In Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, it urges the Christian to resists such imposition of an adiaphora as dogma. You can see this in Chapter X in relation to the Romanists/ Papist as the context of this imposition.

Is someone imposing something to you which is an adiaphora? You need to fight it, rather than yield to it.

The only safe place ... to be happy

Put it this way, if you struggle in life, week in and week out, when you even have to hassle for the air you breathe, when life's problems bog you down, day in and day out, would you not like to unload your sadness and pain one way or another?

Once we understand the core behind Gospel Spiritual Songs is lamentation, perhaps we would not be so quick to frown what goes on in their churches.

To some, this is the only safe place for them to feel happy, even for a couple of hours. Where would you like them to be happy? In a bar, in the sport's field? What better place for them to have it but in an inspirational environment where the promises of God are talked about and pass around.

I get you, and I understand - and I say, may God bless you.