Should Apostolics Read the Apocrypha?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Romans 3

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--should-apostolics-read-the-apocrypha
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
no we don't need the apocrypha as scripture certainly and i will say for an extended discussion i have a book called god's infallible word and it explains why we believe the 66 books of the bible are supposed to be there the the term for that is the canon so those are the canonical books and then it explains why these other books which are called the apocrypha why they aren't considered part of the bible so let me give you the reasons why and i will say if you want to do historical study they could be helpful reading for some things what did people believe in those ancient times there are some historical books the maccabees which give you historical information about the inter- testamental times so i'm not saying they have no value they can have some value but they should not be treated as scripture here's the reasons why first of all these would be under the old testament times before the coming of christ they would be the old covenant well god gave the old covenant to the jews to the people of israel paul explains in romans 3 for example that the oracles of god were given to the nation of israel well the jews and the people of israel never accepted the books of the apocrypha scripture so they were written in that time or concerning that time and the people of god of that time never accepted him so that's the first reason that we shouldn't accept them the second reason is jesus and the apostles never quoted from the apocrypha in any way that would indicate it would be scriptural so jesus the apostles and the other writers of the new testament quoted to quoted from or alluded to almost all the hebrew books of the old testament as scripture so they recognize our old testament as the word of god they never there could be some illusions historically but they never recognize the books of the apocrypha are quoted from the books of the apocrypha as scripture so that's the second reason the third reason is the early church never accepted these books now there was some temporary local individual acceptance but by and large the early christians as a whole again even after the apostles didn't quote them or refer to them as scripture and then fourth these books typically have some doctrinal statements that don't match up to the rest of the bible such as prayers for the dead or the concept of salvation by works or do good works to earn favors with god or earn forgiveness so when you have revealed truth of our existing old testament and new testament and then you have books that contradict that well then you know they they can't be scriptural because they don't match up with what is true now the books of the apocrypha some of them were included in ancient manuscripts and ancient compilations of scripture but that's a complicated discussion because just because a book was included in a compilation doesn't mean it was necessarily treated as the same as scripture just like we might have a bible with study aids or a concordance or you know sometimes we might have various discussions written by someone and they're inserted in our bible but they're not scripture and we know they're not so this really became an issue at the time of the protestant reformation so when martin luther started the protestant reformation in 1517 he began to preach justification by faith not works he came against many of the doctrines of the medieval roman catholic church and so well they're not found in scripture so we shouldn't believe them well in response some of the catholics look to some of the apocryphal books well we can find some teachings in these books and so then the protestants said but they're not scripture and so the reason why people would want to make them scripture is often motivated by polemics more trying to find more support for catholic doctrines as opposed to protestant doctrines so that's not a sufficient justification to try to add them into the word of god at this point and and so that's why there's this debate of of the catholic versus protestants so the catholics accept them but the protestants do not so we would agree with the ancient jews with jesus and the apostles and the historic protestant church that the apocrypha should should not be considered to be the bible or the word of god or scripture they could be used for study they could be helpful in studying some aspects of ancient history or doctrinal beliefs what people of that time thought and so in writing my doctoral thesis i sometimes had occasion just like i would quote from other jewish writers such as philo or josephus i might quote from some of the apocryphal books to show what were some typical jewish ideas and beliefs of that time in a historical context but certainly we should not consider the apocrypha to be the word of god now there are other books in a similar category that different people think are lost books of the new testament and while those aren't this technical group the apocrypha much the same comments would apply so if you see someone claiming these are the lost books of the bible or these are extra books here's another gospel here's another acts the same problems apply they weren't written or by the apostles or the associates of the apostles they were never accepted by the early church any acceptance would have been simply local temporary or exceptional they typically have false doctrines or teachings that contradict what we already know is the new testament and so again while they may have some value for historical study none of those other books should be considered part of the new testament or the bible