Eusebius' Proof of the Gospel

Eusebius, the Roman historian and Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine who lived from 263A.D. to 339A.D., is famous for writing works on early Church history and the life of Constantine. But there is another work which he wrote which is not very famous in our current generation, primarily because it's hard to find an english translation of the original Latin manuscript. That work was called Demonstratio Evangelica. Translated into English, that title means "The Proof of the Gospel." In Eusebius' Proof of the Gospel, he describes a number of historical events in connection with Jesus' prophecy as recorded in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Commenting on those prophecies of Jesus, Eusebius writes:

But who would not be surprised at the fulfillment of a prophecy which revealed that the Jewish people would undergo these sufferings in the days of the Lord? For as soon as Jesus our Lord and Savior had come and the Jews had outraged Him, everything that had been predicted was fulfilled against them without exception 500 years after the prediction: from the time of Pontius Pilate to the sieges under Nero, Titus and Vespasian they were never free from all kinds of successive calamities, as you may gather from the history of Flavius Josephus... For after the coming of our savior Jesus Christ, their city, Jerusalem itself, and the whole system and institutions of the Mosaic worship were destroyed; and at once they underwent captivity in mind as well as body, in refusing to accept the Savior and Ransomer of the souls of men, him Who came to preach release to those enslaved by evil demons, and giving of sight to those blind in mind.1

And from that time a succession of all kinds of troubles afflicted the whole nation and their city until the last war against them, and the final siege, in which destruction rushed on them like a flood2 with all kinds of misery of famine3, plague4 and sword5, and all who had conspired against the Savior in their youth were cut off.6

When, then, we see that was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shown in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.7

1.  Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, translated by W. J. Ferrar [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981] 2:26-27
2.  Dan. 9:26
3.  Matt. 24:7
4.  Luke 21:21
5.  Luke 21:24
6.  Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, translated by W. J. Ferrar [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981] 2:138  (c.f. 2:403)
7.  Ibid.  2:147

Instructions to the Twelve (B and B')

In the previous post on Matthew, I covered the first and last sections (A and A') of chapter ten together. And as you also may recall, Matthew chapter ten is structured according to the following chiasm:

A)  Instructions to the twelve apostles  (10:5-15)

   B)  Persecution and family division  (10:16-23)

      C)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:24-25)

         D1)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear them..." (10:26-27)

            D2)  "Do not fear those who... but Fear Him who can..." (10:28-30)

         D3)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear, therefore..." (10:31-33)

      C’)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:34-36)

   B’)  Persecution and family division  (10:37-39)

A’)  Reception of the twelve apostles  (10:40-42)

The next two parallel sections are B and B', and both of them describe persecution and family division (as noted above and below). In both sections (B & B'), Matthew records these words of Jesus to his twelve apostles:

Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the Father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 

...Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 

Now, I realize that I've said this before in an earlier post, but for the sake of unmistakable emphasis I'm going to repeat myself. There is a very good reason why Jesus took his twelve apostles aside and told them that they would be delivered over to courts, flogged in their synagogues, and dragged before governors and kings to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. It is because the Son of Man was going to come upon that generation in judgment.

I also realize that I've said this before, but for the sake of protecting myself against prejudicial, egotistic, premillenial brethren who read this post and feel the need to scold me for teaching "unbiblical" views, I'm going to repeat myself. There is a very good reason why Jesus took his twelve apostles aside and told them that they didn't need to be anxious about how they were to speak or what they were to say, and that what they were to say was promised to be given by the Holy Spirit to them in that hour. It was because the Son of Man was going to come upon that generation in judgment. 

And last of all, I realize that I've said this before too, but for the sake of abundant clarity, I'm going to repeat myself one more time. There is a very good reason why they would be hated by all for the sake of Jesus' name, and why only those who would endure to the end would be saved, and why those who would not lose their life for Jesus' sake would not find life. It was because the Son of Man was going to come upon that generation in judgment. 

Of course, you didn't need me to emphasize this for you. Everything you needed to know was spoken just as clearly by Jesus. He said these very words (in section B above):

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

From the context itself, it's obvious that whenever the Son of Man was prophesied to "come" and visit, he would be coming upon all of the towns of Israel and before all twelve apostles could go through all of them. This exact language about the Son of Man coming in judgment is mentioned in multiple places throughout Matthew's gospel, which should lead us to believe that they're all talking about the exact same time-frame and events. For example, in Matthew 16:24-28, Jesus tell his disciples again that:

If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ...For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Notice Jesus' own repeated emphasis upon the very close time-frame in which this "coming" of the Son of Man would take place. It's as though Jesus insisted on repeating himself over and over again for the sake of abundant clarity. (Sound familiar?) Jesus repeats this same message again; this time, it's in Matthew 23:32-39, where we find Jesus condemning the ungodly rulers of Israel within Herod's idolatrous temple, and lamenting over Jerusalem and it's temple's soon-coming destruction:

Fill up, then, the measure of your Fathers! You serpents! You brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth... Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate!

In the very next verses of Matthew' gospel, we find Jesus standing outside of the temple and prophesying against Jerusalem; and in this prophecy we find identical statements with the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 10 (B & B'). Furthermore, Jesus' prophecy clarifies Matthew 10 by explicitly describing this "coming" of the Son of Man as the destruction of Jerusalem and it's idolatrous temple at "the end" of the Old Covenant "age." Matthew 24:1-21 says that:

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end [of the age] is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of the birth pains. Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas, for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! ... For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

In Luke's gospel, we find the exact same recording of Jesus' prophecy against Israel, only stated in Luke's own words (and for a difference audience than Matthew, of course). Do yourself a big favor and pay very close attention to the identical prophecy of Jesus here in Luke 21:10-24, and compare it with the statements of Jesus above in Matthew 10:16-23 (section B & B' above). Luke writes:

Then [Jesus] said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives. But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." 

By comparing the language of Matthew 10, Matthew 24, and Luke 21, it is obvious that Jesus was prophesying about a soon-coming judgment upon the land of Israel. "These are the days of vengeance," Jesus said, "to fulfill all that is written."  What?  Is Jesus saying that the Old Covenant scriptures and prophets spoke of the end of the Old Covenant age and a day in which the Lord would come in judgment upon that land and that temple (Herod's Temple)? Jesus certainly seems to have thought so. 

Also, notice carefully that in the place where Matthew records the words,  "When you see the Abomination of desolation standing in the midst of the Holy Place," Luke interprets that very same statement as meaning, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies..." That would be a very odd statement for Jesus to tell his disciples if he intended that as a prophecy for future generations thousands of years later on in history.

Continuing this same train of thought, but just a few verses later in Matthew's gospel, Jesus speaks with abundant clarity about when these judgments would take place. He says they would take place in his generation. Matthew 24:23-34 reads: 

...If anyone says to you, "Look! Here is the Messiah!" or "There he is!" do not believe it. For false Messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, "Look! he is in the wilderness," do not go out. If they say, "Look! He is in the inner rooms," do not believe it. For as lightening comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. ...From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 

Luke 21:25-33 records these exact same words of Jesus, immediately after the parallel reference above. Make no mistake about this. The prophecy of Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are describing the exact same events. 

And finally, in case you were skeptical about this very near time-references about Jesus "coming" in judgment, Matthew 26:60-65 should seal the deal. In these verses, Jesus stands before the High Priest of Israel and many of the Jewish Rulers of Jerusalem, and it is there that we find Matthew recording these details:

At last, two [witnesses] came forward and said, "This man [Jesus] said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'" And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy!"

You may want to call me a heretic. You may even want to accuse me of engaging in some kind of theological jujitsu. But if you want to make a rational exegesis of the biblical text, what you cannot accuse me of being is crazy. I am not the one who repeatedly clarified that the Son of Man would come upon that first century generation of Israel in judgment. Jesus taught that message. If you've got a problem with that message, take it up with Jesus. And once you're done with Jesus (as if you could possibly win), you may also want to consider taking it up with his apostles too. They also taught what Jesus prophesied, namely this exact same soon "coming" of Christ in judgment upon Israel (II Thess. 2:1-7; I John 2:28-29; James 5:7-8; Rev. 1:1-7; Heb. 10:36-39; II Pet. 3:1-7).

Lutheranism 101: Are Lutherans Cannibals?

In Lutheranism 101, a question arises out of concern for their traditional view of eating the Lord's "real body and blood." This question is framed this way: "Are Lutherans Cannibals?" The author responded this way:

Because Lutherans teach that Jesus is really present with His body and blood, they have been accused of cannibalism. Rest easy; it isn't true. A cannibal eats physical flesh with his teeth. While we teach that Jesus is bodily present, we do not teach that He is physically present. Things are physical when they take up space; we believe that Jesus is really present with His body and blood but in a mode that doesn't take up space. Can He do that? Yes!1

Now, let's try to break down the meaning of these claims. As far as I can tell, it seems like his argument goes something like this: "Lutherans are not cannibals because cannibals eat physical flesh. But Lutherans don't teach that they are eating Jesus' physical flesh. They're eating Jesus' non-physical flesh." Now, if I'm correct in viewing the meaning of his statements this way, I'm still not quite sure what non-physical flesh is, exactly. I mean, I understand the difference between physical and non-physical as a concept, and I even understand that Jesus' body and blood was very physical in substance, but I'm still not quite sure what the author of Lutheranism 101 means by that. Of course the author tries to explain himself. He says that Lutheranism does not teach that Jesus is physically present. Check. He also says that things are physical when they take up space. Check. But then he says, "we believe that Jesus is really present with His body and blood but in a mode that doesn't take up space."

But what does the author mean exactly by "in a mode that doesn't take up space"? In his usually fantastically brilliant, earth-shattering manner, this author answers that very question. He writes:

After rising from the dead, Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room and showed them His hands and His side (John 20:19-20). How did He get into the locked room? The Bible doesn't specify, but somehow He moved His body through the walls or locked door without displacing the barrier and creating a hole. As He went through, His body didn't take up space (we call this His "incomprehensible mode"). During the Lord's Supper, the bread doesn't change in size with Jesus' body present; His body is present without taking up space. One can't eat something that isn't physically present, so, no, Lutherans aren't cannibals.2 

There you have it. Problem solved. Mystery discovered. This is Lutheran biblical exegesis at it's finest. Jesus says "This is My body," and that means he is "really present" in the bread and wine "in a mode that doesn't take up space." What other biblical proof is there for believing in this special  mode? Well, that's easy! Jesus walked through the walls or the locked door without displacing the barrier and creating a hole! And the author knows this for certain. And because he knows this for certain, we can be certain too, even though he admits that "The Bible doesn't specify" how Jesus got into the locked room. 

Did you catch that slight of hand too? 

Let me rewind and show that again. The author begins by admitting that the Bible does not specify how Jesus got into the locked room, but nevertheless (mysteriously!) this author knows how Jesus got into the locked room. And because this author knows how Jesus got into the locked room (i.e. he walked through the locked door), John 20:19-20 becomes a proof-text for believing that Jesus is "really present" in the bread and wine "in a mode that doesn't take up space."

Now, what really bothers me about this strained exegesis of Scripture is that this Lutheran author knows his traditional interpretation is not comprehensible, but their precious long-standing tradition is held to anyway. They even have a name for how Jesus walks through walls: they call this his "incomprehensible mode." 

In previous posts, I showed that this very same author loves to talk big about how dangerous it is to add or subtract from God's Word, and how important it is to listen to exactly what Jesus says; but this particular Lutheran tradition encourages people to do the very opposite by throwing away their rationality. And perhaps there is no more appropriate proof-text, other than John 20:19-20, to show off this blatant inconsistency. (Remember, the author of Lutheranism 101 used this as their proof-text for Jesus' "incomprehensible mode" in the Lord's Supper.) Notice what John 20:19-20 says: 

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

Notice that it mentions absolutely nothing about how Jesus got into the locked room. It just says that the doors were locked and that "Jesus came and stood among them." Now, if I were a betting man, I would bet $100.00 that in a room filled with traditional indoctrinated Lutherans, 75% of them would interpret this verse as though Jesus had to walk through the walls or the locked door. But if I were in a room filled with Calvinists, I would bet $100.00 that 75% of them would see a third alternative -- namely that Jesus simply appeared before them without needing to walk through anything, and without needing to "displace the barrier" of anything. From the text itself, it reads as though Jesus simply appears out of thin air. Jesus appears and disappears elsewhere in John's gospel, both times after Jesus has been raised with his glorified body, but there is no mention of Jesus walking through anything. Moreover, in Luke 24:13-43, Jesus meets two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and after a while he sits down to eat and break bread with them; and suddenly, after breaking the bread, Jesus disappears. Then suddenly, when these disciples flee to their friends in Jerusalem, Jesus suddenly reappears again (all within a few verses too). 

Now, let me ask this question: What Lutheran scholar would seriously argue that Jesus had to walk through all the walls and trees and people and locked doors on his way from the road to Emmaus to Jerusalem in order to reappear with the other disciples? If someone is going to argue that arbitrarily --when the text simply mentions that he disappears and reappears suddenly-- they might as well argue that Jesus broke the bread and jumped into it through this silly incomprehensible mode, and his disciples carried him all the way back to Jerusalem. That way, they could argue that Jesus was "really present" in the bread too.

All of these Lutheran arguments are mysterious because they're nonsense. I mean, if they really believed that Jesus walked through the walls of the locked room, and that somehow this teaches us that Jesus' body and blood is "really present" in a non-physical mode, what they're really saying is that they believe Jesus' body and blood could share physical space. But that's not what they're saying. They're saying that Jesus manifests his body and blood in a non-physical mode which doesn't take up space. But where in Scripture do you find a rational basis for believing that? They might argue, in the words "This is My body, This is My blood" (Actually, Jesus doesn't say, "This is my blood," but I digress.) But that commits the fallacy of begging the question. They are assuming what needs to be proven rationally. Then they might respond, "But John's gospel shows that Jesus walked through locked doors!" To which I would respond, no John's gospel doesn't say that. Nor does Luke's gospel. Then they might argue, "but we know there are sufficient reasons to believe this because we even have an official, confessional name for it: it's called the incomprehensible mode."

My response would be something to this effect: If they can't prove their case  rationally from the Bible, then why insist that the Bible is their source for this incomprehensible mode? And if they don't expect their precious doctrine to be proven rationally, then why do they bother proving anything about it at all? Again, it seems like the author of Lutheranism 101 is well exercised in mental gymnastics and potentially dabbles in Jedi mind tricks from time to time, but those tricks are subtly deceptive and foolish, and Christians should be trained by their pastors and teachers to know better than this. Christians should have more assurance from the Word of God than this irrational Lutheran indoctrination about "the real presence" of Jesus and how His body and blood is really present in a non-physical, incomprehensible mode that doesn't take up space.

I've got an alternative idea to all of this eating-Jesus-for-dinner talk. Why don't Lutherans argue that Jesus is "really present" in the bread and wine, and that through faith Christians really do eat the body and blood of Christ, but only in a literal spiritually-present sense. Oh, yeah. I forgot. Lutherans wouldn't believe that because that's what Calvinists teach. 

1.  Scot Kinnaman [General Editor], Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 150

2.  Ibid. p. 151

Lutheranism 101: Partaking in a worthy manner

I recently came across a book distributed by a pastor of a local LCMS1 church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The book is titled Lutheranism 101, and it's a fairly basic book even though it fills almost three hundred 8"x10" pages with "official" Lutheran dogma (which I think is a fairly large sized book of basic "essentials"). I was especially caught off guard by a few "official" doctrines in the book, not that I had never heard of them before. It's just that I never heard contemporary answers to basic questions answered this, well, basically. For instance, in the section on the Lord's Supper, the question is asked, "Who Is Worthy?" with regard to participants in the sacred meal itself. The answer to that question is as follows:

Being worthy and well prepared to receive the Lord's Supper involves believing the words "given and shed." What is given and shed? Jesus' body and blood. In other words, worthiness involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very2 body and blood. In the previous chapter, we mentioned that some believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution; and that makes one unprepared for the Sacrament.3

Here are a few of my thoughts on this matter. First of all, I find it interesting that the author inserts the parallel phrase, worthy and well prepared, as he defines worthiness. Clearly, the author did not consider Paul's own words to be clear enough -- words which only warn Christians to not partake "in an unworthy manner" (I Cor. 11:27).  This author felt the need to add to what Paul actually said and to emphasize that additional concept. After all, neither Jesus or Paul made any mention of being "well prepared." In the last sentence of this definition, the author again mentions being "unprepared" for the Sacrament. And so, being "unworthy" is doctrinally and conceptually synonymous with being "unprepared." 

But what is another oddity of this view (besides adding terminology to what Paul actually said)? One other oddity is that Paul is the only one who mentions worthiness. Jesus doesn't mention that at all. Now, I realize that the doctrine of plenary inspiration necessitates Paul's canonical words to be the authorized words of God, and since Jesus is God, Paul's words are the authoritative words of Jesus. However, isn't it a bit odd that the author insists that Christian beliefs should not contradict what Jesus Himself really says, yet the author doesn't even reference the actual words of Jesus regarding "worthiness"? Let's not forget that he adds to Paul's terminology as well. 

But this operating definition looks even more suspicious when viewed much closer. The author says that receiving the Lord's Supper involves "believing the words 'given and shed.'" Well, I certainly believe that the meaning of Jesus' words "given" and "shed" were in some sense involved in receiving the Supper. But the author of Lutheranism 101 simply takes for granted what that sense is without clarifying that Jesus' statements don't necessarily share the same assumptions as this Lutheran author. It's a subtle maneuver, but it's definitely there; and this traditional Lutheran assumption is arbitrary as well. Let's see how this plays out practically.

Notice carefully that this author sneaks in two ideas while assuming that they both share a literal one-to-one correspondence in meaning. The author doesn't prove it. It is assumed in advance and taken for granted. On the one hand he says that worthiness "involves believing the words 'given and shed,'" but on the other hand he says that worthiness "involves believing that you are receiving Jesus' very (i.e. real or genuine) body and blood"; which is to say that if you don't believe you are receiving Jesus' real or genuine body and blood, you are not believing the words "given and shed." Did you catch that slight-of-hand too? He is assuming that the meaning of Jesus' words must share a literal one-to-one correspondence, but he's not telling you that the Words of Institution can mean something else, only one of which is that Jesus mysteriously amalgamated the real bread and wine with his real body "given" and his real "shed" blood. There are, in fact, other potential meanings to Jesus' Words of Institution. One does not need to adopt this traditional Lutheran assumption, especially if the Scriptures themselves do not infer that such assumptions are necessary to partake worthily or unworthily. 

Let's keep in mind what Jesus actually said in his Words of Institution:

This is my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me. ...This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

Let's now think of some alternatives. One possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his literal human flesh and blood. That is to say, those who partake of the bread and wine don't really partake of real bread and wine at all. They partake of something which appears to be bread and wine, but really is Jesus' flesh and blood. This, to me, seems to be an exaggerated claim. It assumes all sorts of things, one of which is that eating literal human flesh and blood would be lawful in God's sight, even though God strictly prohibits drinking sacrificial blood (Gen. 9:1-6; Lev. 17:10-14). Likewise, the Bible illustrates cannibalism in a handful of places, but it never condones it (Lev. 26:29; Deut. 28:53-57; 2 Kng. 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; Ezek. 5:10); rather it treats eating human flesh as a curse from God, which is probably why the Jews were abhorred by Jesus' words in John 6:52. They thought Jesus was speaking literally when he spoke of eating his flesh and blood; and so they thought, "How can this man [Jesus] give us his flesh to eat?"

Another possible meaning could be that Jesus mysteriously turned the bread and wine into his real body and blood, but only for his twelve apostles. That's at least possible. After all, he does say "this is my body...for you ...This cup is ...for you." And who was that particular "you"? It was the twelve apostles! Of course, because that seems to conflict with Paul's address to the Corinthian church, which included more participants in the Lord's Supper than just the twelve apostles, it's reasonable to conclude that such an interpretation would be completely arbitrary. Now, if there was a worldwide tradition which held that view, would you believe it just because it's traditional? I would hope not. Scripture itself should be the final authority for the Christian, not tradition.

Now let's consider the traditional Lutheran view again, only in more detail. The traditional Lutheran view is that Jesus' statement, "this is my body," was literally and mystically united with the bread in it's physical essence. I will admit, this is a possible interpretation. After all, when referencing the bread, Jesus does say "this is my body." Martin Luther himself is famous for this belief. There is even a famous incident at a meeting in Marburg, Saxony (modern day Germany) where various church leaders could not come to an agreement about Jesus' Words of Institution, and in the midst of the dialogue Luther began to pound his fist on the table, saying over and over again, "Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est corpus meum." ("This is my body, This is my body.")  In contrast with this famous incident, I find it very interesting that Luther did not insist in a literal interpretation of the phrase, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood." Luther interpreted the first statement as literal, but the second statement as representative and figurative. In other words, Luther assumed that the first statement was literal, and excused himself from needing to interpret the second statement as literal too, even though Jesus uses the exact same words to consecrate both elements. Jesus said "This [bread] is my body" and "This cup is the new covenant." 

Moreover, if Lutherans who hold to these traditional assumptions were consistent, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united his real (physical & spiritual, human and divine) body and handed it (his real body) to his disciples in the form of bread, and that he did the same thing with the cup too. That is to say, with the cup, they would need to argue that Jesus mysteriously united the physical cup of wine in his hand as the literal new covenant itself. No other physical substance, other than the "cup" of wine, could possibly become mysteriously united with the new covenant. Jesus must have meant that the cup of wine would become the new covenant every time Christians partook of his blood "in a worthy manner." But what would it actually mean to literally unite a physical/non-spiritual cup of wine with a non-physical/spiritual covenant? Lutheranism 101 doesn't give an answer to that question, and I suspect that the traditional answer (if there even is one) would be arbitrarily based upon mere Lutheran tradition. Furthermore, why would anyone insist that such a distinction is essential to partaking worthily? One might expect Jesus or the Apostle Paul to have been a bit clearer in their presentation of the facts. (Were they clear enough?)

But let's get back on track with how serious the meaning of these Words of Institution are. Are these meanings the only viable options? The author of Lutheranism 101 is aware of at least one other optional tradition. He insists that,

...some [Christians] believe that they receive only bread and wine, not Jesus' body and blood. 

He then asserts with great confidence that, 

To believe this is to contradict what Jesus Himself says in the Words of Institution. 

That's quite an assertion. One would think that arbitrarily interpreting the bread as becoming his literal body, but the cup of wine not literally becoming the new covenant, would be a more blatant contradiction. And as far as I can tell, it's not contradictory at all to interpret both the bread and the cup of wine as representing Jesus body and blood. That, actually, would be very consistent and reasonable because the bread would represent his "given" body and the cup of wine would represent his "shed" blood. Neither the bread nor the cup of wine become anything other than sanctified bread and wine. Nothing mystical or supernatural invades or transforms the elements themselves. 

Moreover, if the bread and the wine of the new covenant represent the broken body and shed blood of Jesus which was given for us, then there would also be no need to strain the meaning of Jesus' words beyond what was actually spoken by Jesus and reiterated by the Apostle Paul. We wouldn't need to conjure up some rationale for Jesus uniting his "real" body and blood with a "real" loaf of bread and a "real" cup. We also wouldn't need to conjure up some strange "spiritual" extension of his dual-nature (as though the Scriptures allude to some extension, addition, or subtraction from his human & divine essence). And so, one very rational and reasonable meaning of the Words of Institution is actually what the author of Lutheranism 101 falsely claims to be contradictory, namely that the bread which Jesus broke represented Jesus' broken body, and that his blood shed on the cross was represented by a cup of red wine, and because of that participants in the Lord's Supper receive real bread and wine, not Jesus' real body and blood. Paul certainly seems to have interpreted it this way when he concludes, saying:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.4

Notice, Paul does not even come close to hinting in agreement with this claim of Lutheranism 101. Paul doesn't spend any time distinguishing between those who receive the real body and blood, and those who merely receive real bread and wine. Instead, what he says is that by eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lord's Supper, they proclaim --they show forth-- their Lord's death. They don't receive the "real" body and blood of the Lord who died. They proclaim the Lord's death. They commemorate the unique covenantal meal in which Jesus and his disciples participated the night he was betrayed, leading to his death. In other words, when the Christian church eats the bread and drinks the cup, they don't proclaim the death of a literal Passover lamb, thereby renewing the old covenant. Instead, they proclaim their Lord's death over and over again as often as they do that together. They proclaim what the Passover lamb represented and what the old covenant anticipated. They ratify their covenant --the new covenant-- with Jesus. They receive a real covenantal meal, with real bread and wine, and they proclaim the real sacrifice for their sins -- Jesus Christ. One might even get the acute feeling that through faith, the Spirit of our risen Lord is present in the midst of his people as they feast on bread and wine together, uniting them in one love, one faith, and one baptism. If so, then thanks be to God.

1.  LCMS stands for Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
2.  "Very" means real or genuine.
3.  Scot A. Kinnaman [General Editor] Lutheranism 101 [St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2010] p. 155
4.  I Corinthians 11:26

Instructions to the Twelve (A and A')

In an earlier post I presented the literary structure of Matthew chapter ten as follows:

A)  Instructions to the twelve apostles  (10:5-15)

   B)  Persecution and family division  (10:16-23)

      C)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:24-25)

         D1)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear them..." (10:26-27)

            D2)  "Do not fear those who... but Fear Him who can..." (10:28-30)

         D3)  Consolation of the twelve: "Do not fear, therefore..." (10:31-33)

      C’)  Enemies of the Master’s household  (10:34-36)

   B’)  Persecution and family division  (10:37-39)

A’)  Reception of the twelve apostles  (10:40-42)

In a post before that, I pointed out that Matthew chapter ten is also chock-full of references that Christians often abuse without knowing it. Part of what contributes to the abuse of the text's meaning is that 21st century Christians presume that Matthew recorded these words (and Jesus spoke these words) to them today. They mistakenly project themselves into the story of Matthew chapter ten as though they were standing in the same room as Jesus and his twelve apostles, receiving the same instructions first hand. 

Instead, what 21st century Christians should be doing first is interpreting this entire chapter in its own historical context, a context which limits these instructions to the twelve apostles of Jesus (Matt. 10:1-4). The second thing Christians today should do is pay close attention to the literary structure which Matthew provides. There are good reasons why Jesus ends this discourse with statements about receiving a prophet's reward and losing that reward (A', verses 40-42). Those were not doctrinal clues to help Christians unlock the secret Biblical-code of God's eternal will and ultimately lose their own assurance of salvation. Nor was Jesus giving miscellaneous collections of "eternal truths" to help Calvinists and Arminians sort out their soteriological differences. Those were simply closing thoughts that completed the opening instructions of this discourse (A, verses 5-15). And so, let's now turn to the historical context of sections A and A' to see what this does and does not mean and how section A' completes the message of A. 

Jesus begins with instructions to his Twelve, telling them to go "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (10:6), proclaiming that "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" and finding out "who is worthy" of the Kingdom as they go from town to town, from one Israelite household to another. This opening section (A) even includes a statement which has become a popular Christian slogan: "If anyone will not listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet." Unfortunately this statement is taken completely out of its original historical context. What Jesus actually said was, "if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town." It is embarrassing to find zealous Christians today who abuse this statement as though those were instructions to us -- as though Jesus were saying, "If unbelievers don't like you preaching to them the truth, and they become hostile towards you, shake the dust off your feet and move on to another town to preach the truth." But that is not the way in which this passage is to be understood in its historical context. In fact, if Christians today are going to be consistent in their approach to the instructions given in this chapter, i.e. presuming that Jesus was giving Christians today these specific instructions, they should also limit these instructions to Israelites only (10:6); they should also heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons (v. 8), carry no gold, silver, copper, staff, bag, sandals, or two tunics along with them (vv. 9-10). If we believe that Matthew recorded these instructions as though Jesus was instructing us today, the consistent, principled approach would be to heed all of Jesus' instructions within the chapter, instead of arbitrarily selecting which ever ones are convenient for the time being. 

But this brings up a couple obvious questions: Did Matthew record these instructions as though Jesus was instructing us today? And why don't Christians today prefer to interpret all of these verses in a manner analogous to our generation? 

Well, I suppose some do. Franciscans and other ascetic traditions do, unfortunately, apply these verses in contemporary settings. But that's because they too have misunderstood these instructions of chapter ten as though they were eternal truths spoken to us. For example, certain ascetic traditions follow after Saint Francis of Assisi, who took Jesus' instructions literally as pertaining to him and the Christians ministry which followed him. St. Francis taught that Christ and the twelve apostles renounced all property and material possessions of their own, singly and jointly. He also lived by the same example which he imagined was true of Jesus and his apostles, avoiding all opportunities to ask for money or to live at the expense of others. As a result, he scrounged around for crusts of bread and discarded vegetables from trash-bins, and he worked as a day laborer, insisting on being paid in bread, vegetables, and water, rather than in money, because -- as Jesus said -- "the laborer deserves his food" (v. 10). Sadly, St. Francis overlooked the fact that the Apostle Paul quotes this statement of Jesus; but instead of interpreting it as though Jesus endorsed complete, self-abasing poverty, Paul interpreted it as though Christian pastors should receive financial support for their labor in the Word and the Church (cf. Luke 10:7 & I Tim. 5:18).1 Christians venerate St. Francis because of his faithfulness to God's Word, when in fact, he misunderstood the historical context of Matthew chapter ten completely.

Jesus was not instructing us in Matthew chapter ten any more than he was instructing St. Francis. Jesus was instructing his twelve apostles, and only his twelve apostles. The only meaningful extension of these instructions would have been for other Israelites who received this message of Jesus' apostles in faith, and followed them as they traveled throughout Israel in the first century. Matthew even gives us an overt clue as to why these instructions were for Jesus' apostles, and why Jesus' apostles were to heed these instructions as they went preaching door to door. After Jesus tells them to shake the dust from their feet, he pronounces a judgment upon those towns and their people who  would reject the gospel of his Kingdom having already come. Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the Day of Judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." Now all we need to ask is, "what town?" What town did Jesus mean when he said "that town"?

Was Jesus talking about any town of any generation? Was he talking about the town of Waukesha, Wisconsin in the year 2013? Did he have a specific town in mind, singled out for judgment? No, he didn't. He was talking generally about whatever town rejected his apostles -- whatever towns in which the lost sheep of the house of Israel dwelled in that generation. This message of an entire town having to face God on the Day of Judgment would have given first century Jews the impression that soon-coming judgment was approaching them, causing them to face their Maker and give an account before Him much sooner than later. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of it's great lawlessness and idolatry (Gen. 13:13; 18:20; 19; Deut. 29:23). This is why any mention of Sodom and Gomorrah among Jews became a proverbial expression of warning of God's wrath upon any idolatrous nation (Isa. 1:9; 13:19; Jer. 22:14; 50:40; Amos 4:11). Sodom and Gomorrah faced a swift judgment from God in the days of Abraham, and after their destruction, they too await the final Day of Judgment for their idolatry just like the town of Israel in Jesus' day. And so, one logical inference from this promise of judgment that awaits both Sodom, Gomorrah, and those towns of Israel in the first century is that God would be coming quickly to physically demolish those towns in judgment just as He did with Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, this promise of facing a worse judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah would have been viewed by first century Jews as a warning of sudden and swifter judgment upon those towns than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. 

This is why Jesus can confidently tell his twelve apostles that "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me" (v. 40). When an Israelite heard that the Kingdom of Heaven was in their midst as promised, which also meant that the last days of the Old Covenant were coming to a close as promised, the people had one of two choices to make: they would either side with Jesus as their promised Messiah and King and heed the message of his apostles, or reject Jesus and his apostles and hope in some other savior at some later time. But here we learn that those who would receive this message of the apostles, would also receive Jesus. And those who received Jesus, received the Father who sent (apostled) him. And by receiving the Father, they receive the covenant blessings promised by the Father. By receiving the words of the Father's prophets in faith, they receive exactly what the prophet pronounces to them, namely life and miraculous provisions to sustain them through the coming judgment pronounced upon the land and it's idolaters. By receiving a just man into their home, they receive the rewards of a just man. Consequently, by rejecting a just man or a prophet who comes in the name of the Lord, they will receive justice for rejecting Jesus, and the Father who sent him. They will receive the reward of swifter and more severe judgment due to them for their idolatry. 

The responsibility given to these twelve apostles in this commission was no light matter. They had to be prepared for God's wrath which was promised to pour out upon the land of Israel for her spiritual harlotry and idolatry. Remember, Jesus is the one who describes the state of Israel in the first century as being worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, and worthy of a worse punishment and a worse sentence on the Day of Judgment. But whoever would receive one of Jesus' disciples, supporting them and giving them a cup of cold water after hearing that message (v. 42), by no means lost their reward because they believed God's Word to them in faith; and by sacrificing their livelihood for the sake of Jesus and the Word of God, they would receive the blessing of their heavenly Father and Judge, instead of his wrath and condemnation.

1.  The ESV translation of Matt. 10:8 is actually misleading because the words "without paying" and "without pay" are not actually in the text itself. Only the verb δωρεάν is used, and it simply means to hand out something as a gift (i.e. "give freely"). The ESV translates it this way: "You received without paying; give without pay," which implies that ministers of the gospel should not receive money as the means of supporting their ministry. The NASB, NIV, NLT, and The Voice translate this verse more accurately: "Freely you received, freely give" (NASB); "Freely you have received; freely give" (NIV); "Give as freely as you have received" (NLT); "You received these gifts freely, so you should give them to others freely" (The Voice). The Apostle Paul's interpretation of this statement by Jesus is appropriate because Jesus was not teaching his disciples to reject all forms of compensation for their services. Jesus was teaching his disciples not to solicit their services as though they would only help if paid for their services. Instead, Jesus tells his disciples to serve their fellow brethren freely, doing so out of love for those who  show that they too love Jesus. Paul's point in quoting Jesus ("the laborer deserves his hire"; from Luke 10:7, which is Luke's version of Jesus' statement in Matthew 10:8) is that Christians have a moral responsibility to support ministers of the gospel financially if that is how they make their living. This is how you show them "double honor" (Paul says): by caring for their needs as they care for yours. In Matt. 10:8, Jesus is teaching this very principle, not to solicit their services (rejecting those who won't pay them and accepting only those who do), but rather to expect godly people to value their services and provide food and other provisions for them, as necessary, as they serve and minister the gospel.

Matthew's List of the Twelve

And [Jesus] called to himself twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. The names of the twelve apostles are these:

First, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector

James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Matthew 10:1-4)

There are a number of interesting features concerning Matthew's list of "The Twelve." If we limit ourselves to Matthew's narrative alone, we only learn a handful of relevant facts which aid our understanding of the discourse which follows:

1)  Jesus called twelve existing disciples to himself, and he did so for a purpose which was more special than their previous position as "disciples." He called them to himself to "give them authority." He called them to himself to delegate authority to them, not to empty himself of authority or to transfer his own authority to others. 

2)  These "twelve" were men. I know this chides with the spirit of our age and it's acceptance/tolerance of "biblical feminism," but it's a matter of historical fact. Jesus chose twelve males to represent him, not twelve females. Make of that what you will. I'm merely stating what was most obviously Jesus' desire for those who represent him before others. He could have chosen a woman. He could have chosen twelve women. Instead, he chose no women whatsoever.

3)  These "twelve" men were given authority by Jesus to do the things He had been doing previously, namely casting unclean spirits out of people to heal various diseases and burdens which caused suffering. 

4)  These "twelve" are not simply "disciples"; they are now "apostles." As apostles, these men have been chosen as new rulers for and representatives of the people of Israel on behalf of Jesus, the King of Israel. They have been selected and called to represent the twelve tribes of Israel on behalf of Jesus and to "spy" out the land for giants and enemies of Yahweh, and to bring healing and restoration to those in want and need.

5)  The "first" of these twelve apostles is Simon, whose nickname was "Rocky." In Greek, the name "Peter" literally means "a Stone," along with its adjectival meaning of "Rocky" or "Stoney." Simon is always mentioned first on the lists of the twelve apostles (Mark 3:16ff., Luke 6:14ff., Acts 1:13ff.) most likely because he was considered a leader among all twelve. This doesn't mean that he was the leader -- the one and only sovereign arbiter over all twelve (or even the Christian churches). But it does clearly infer that Peter was known to be a leader among the twelve. In other words, this "Rocky" apostle had characteristics of one who functions as a leader. This shouldn't surprise us if we are familiar with the gospel narratives. All throughout the gospels, Peter is vividly portrayed as the most inquisitive and outspoken disciple, as well as the most ambitious one, the most confident one, and the one who takes the initiative most often before anyone else. Even with all of Peter's legitimate weaknesses -- weaknesses of spiritual blindness and vulnerability, doubt and skepticism, impetuous speech and zeal -- the Lord used them all to eventually shape him into a strong, mature leader of the faith. We should never forget that we often attribute faithlessness to Peter because of common misunderstandings. Even at times when Peter seems to be lacking the most faith among Jesus' apostles -- times like when he attempted to walk on water and he sank -- he is actually manifesting the characteristics of a leader. Remember, even though Peter attempted to walk on water, and sank, he was the only apostle with enough faith to get out of the boat and try!

6)  Next we learn that some of the apostles are brothers. Simon's (Peter's) brother is Andrew. The apostle John's brother is James. Matthew was "the tax collector" mentioned earlier in chapter nine. Another Simon is listed, and his nickname is given too. He is "the Zealot," or "the zealous one" (not to be confused with the first century anti-Roman terrorist group called "the Zealots").

7)  And last of all, we learn a couple things about Judas Iscariot. The first thing we learn is that Judas was the one who "betrayed" Jesus. Of course, this statement takes two things for granted: first, this Judas would eventually betray Jesus, and that, secondarily, until this man's name pops up again (and the next  time will be in chapter 26), we are supposed to keep his betrayal in the back of our minds.  We are supposed to be considering his ministry among the twelve with suspicion without having to diminish the powerful work of God through him. If the ultimate betrayer of Jesus can cast out demons and heal the sick in the name of Jesus, does that not give us the right to be suspicious about those who claim the same power and authority for themselves today? 

Also, we learn one more thing peculiar to this Judas Iscariot. This Judas is the only one of the twelve which always has his hometown annexed to his name. His "last name" (so to speak) is not Iscariot. Iscariot is simply the way our Bibles translate his surname (i.e. the name which indicates his birthplace and location among the twelve tribes of Israel). Iscariot literally means "a man of Kerioth," which is a town located in the southern portion of Judea about ten miles south of Hebron. In other words, this Judas who betrayed Jesus was from Judea. This has multiple implications for Matthew's Palestinian-Jewish audience. First, this gives the strong impression that this Judas remained intimately connected with his family roots in the land of Judea, it's capital city being Jerusalem. It also might mean that Judas was the only Judean Jew among the twelve. After all, no other apostle is ever listed with his hometown annexed to his name in order to distinguish him from the others. The other gospels also give the strong impression that the other eleven apostles are from the land of Galilee, not Judea.

Ultimately, what this list of "the Twelve Apostles" confirms is that Israel was in need of new rulers and new shepherds to lead them safely into greener pastures; but not some rogue rulers. Israel clearly needed Jesus, but Jesus was becoming burdened with too much responsibility to handle it all himself, and so he delegated rulers to represent him as they went throughout the twelve tribes of Israel to "cast out unclean spirits, healing every disease and every affliction."

Maundy Thursday Night: The Night of the Lord's Supper

In his book, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History, Dr. Jakob Van Bruggen has provided an excellent biblical and historical explanation of the night in which Jesus instituted his Supper.1 His conclusion is that on the night in which the Lord instituted his Supper, the Jews removed all leavened bread from their homes and served the first evening meal of the lamb, and that was the night of Maundy Thursday. 

Because the entire argument within his book is quite extensive, and the subject so controversial, I will only quote a brief portion of his thoughts, trusting that others are already aware of the alleged "chronology contradiction" or "problem" within all four gospels. Van Bruggen writes:

  After the Wednesday of the final discourses comes the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Matt. 26:17). This is when the Passover lamb is sacrificed (Mark 14:2; Luke 22:7). The days of Unleavened Bread are counted from 15 to 21 Nisan (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 3.10.5 Sec. 249), the seven days during which the Passover offerings are sacrificed in the Temple (Num. 28:16-25). Sometimes, however, 14 Nisan is also included. This is a day of preparation during which people remove all leavened bread from their homes and serve the lamb at the evening meal. In that case there are eight days of Unleavened Bread (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 2.15.1 Sec. 317). The first three evangelists (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke) clearly follow the latter approach when they write about the dawn of the Thursday on which the Passover must be slaughtered (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7). In other words, they consider this Thursday the fourteenth day of Nisan.  

  The terminology used in connection with the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread is complicated. The fourteenth day of Nisan is the day of preparation: all leavened bread is removed from the houses, the lambs are slaughtered, and during the evening the Passover meal is eaten. Because of this evening meal, 14 Nisan is sometimes called the Passover Feast (Lev. 23:5; Josephus, Jewish War 6.9.3 Sec. 423; Antiquities 2.14.6 Sec. 313). 

  The fifteenth of Nisan is the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This feast lasts seven days, during which large sacrifices are brought into the temple (Lev. 23:6; Num. 28:17-25; cf. Josephus, Antiquities 3.10.5 Sec. 249; 9.13.3 Sec. 271; 11.4.8 Sec. 110). The fifteenth day of Nisan is then counted as the first day (16 Nisan is the second day, see Josephus, Antiquities 3.10.5 Sec. 250). The fifteenth of Nisan is actually the day of Israel's liberation (Josephus, Antiquities 2.15.2 Sec. 318). The Jews also refer to the feast of Unleavened Bread (15-21 Nisan) as Passover (cf. Luke 22:1; Josephus, Jewish War 2.1.3 Sec. 10; Antiquities 10.4.5 Sec. 70; 14.2.1 Sec. 21; 17.9.3 Sec. 213; 18.2.2 Sec. 29; 20.5.3 Sec. 106). 

  Because the leavened bread is removed on 14 Nisan, the day is referred to as "the Day of Unleavened Bread" (Josephus, Jewish War 5.3.1 Sec. 99). If this day (14 Nisan) is counted with the feast (15-21 Nisan), one can also speak of a "period of unleavened bread" for eight days (Josephus, Antiquities 2.15.1 Sec. 317; cf. Mark 14:12; Luke 22:1).2

1.  Jakob Van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as History [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books; 1998] pp. 212-219
2.  Ibid. p. 212-213.