Should Apostolics Read the Apocrypha?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

What the Apocrypha is, and the canon

• The question posed (in the host's frame): some christian groups — i'm thinking primarily of the roman catholic church, but there's others — have accepted as canonical, or semi-canonical, several jewish writings, dating from before the coming of christ (the frame dates them across the centuries before him, with one later writing). And these writings are commonly referred to as the apocrypha. Many of these writings (the frame counts them) actually appeared in the original king james version. So can you tell us today: what is the apocrypha? And why isn't it included, in our modern bible? Because if you go to a bible bookstore today, and you buy a bible — or buy one from the pentecostal publishing house — the apocrypha probably won't be in it. Are apostolics missing part of god's word? The answer: 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 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 ('the inter- testamental times', as the word breaks in the hearing). So i'm not saying they have no value. They can have some value. But they should not be treated as scripture.

The four reasons

• 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 (the chapter as he gives it), 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 (as) scripture ('never accepted the books of the apocrypha scripture', as heard). So they were written in that time, or concerning that time. And the people of god, of that time, never accepted them ('never accepted him', as heard, at the pronoun). 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 from ('quoted to quoted from', in his doubled form), 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 allusions ('illusions', as heard) historically — but they never recognized the books of the apocrypha, or 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(ing) 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 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.

Scriptures: Romans 3

The Reformation debate, the lost books, and the close

• 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 so that's why there's this debate, 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 not be considered ('should should not be considered', in his doubled form) 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 (in) 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 by ('written or by', as heard) 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.

Scripture index: Romans 3.